Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sean Francis Hughes Esquire, Member for Knowsley, South, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Gas Turbines

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the number and location of gas turbine projects for the production of electricity in England and Wales.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): There is substantial interest in using gas both by existing generators and by those wishing to enter the generating market. I will arrange for the list to be published in the Official Report.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that because of the low growth in electricity consumption, many of the 10,000 MW projects will not be required, unless there is a massive closure of coal-fired power

stations? Is he further aware that a gas generator producing 350 MW will emit 1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum and that coal is even worse? Is not that a good argument why we should now have a further nuclear power station, as nuclear power is the cleanest of the lot and will keep the industry together?

Mr. Wakeham: I listen to my hon. Friend with considerable interest because of his expertise. In the new regime, it will be for the owners of power stations to determine what they see as the market. Electricity demand is forecast to rise over the next 10 years. All commentators seem to agree on that, although they differ on the rate of increase. The current surplus of capacity is likely to come to an end within the next few years. Net capacity needs to be ordered soon if it is to meet the forecast increase in demand. Capacity is also needed to replace existing capacity. Power stations may come to the end of their life, they may be less efficient or more costly than new power stations, or the cost of reducing emissions may be too high compared with the cost of a nuclear plant.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Secretary of State agree that to follow the line of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), which is to sterilise millions of tonnes of coal by closures in the coal industry, would be a short-sighted medium-term policy? Once gas was not available and the millions of tonnes of coal were sterilised, we should have to rely on competitors. Would that be a wise policy?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government's policy is to encourage a diversity of fuels, but combined cycle gas turbine power stations are friendly to the environment. For every unit of CO2 emitted from a coal-fired station, just over half a unit is emitted from a CCGT station.

Following is the information:

The following combined cycle gas turbine generating (CCGT) stations have been given planning consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989:




National Power plc
Killingholme, South Humberside


PowerGen plc
Killingholme, South Humberside

The following applications for consent for CCGT generating stations are still being considered:


National Power plc
Little Barford, Bedfordshire


PowerGen plc
Rye House, Hertfordshire

I have also been notified by Deeside Power Development Co. Ltd. of its intention to submit an application for consent for a CCGT generating station at Shotton, north Wales.

The following projects have been given approval under section 14(1) of the Energy Act 1976, that is, to establish an electricity generating station to be fuelled by natural gas, or for the conversion of an electricity generating station with a view to its being so fuelled:


Berisford Bristar plc
Brigg, South Humberside


Hawker Siddley/ Eastern Electricity plc
Peterborough


John Brown Engineering Ltd.
Rugby, Warwickshire


Midlands Electricity plc
Hereford


National Power plc
Killingholme, South Humberside


National Power plc
Little Barford, Bedfordshire


Nat West Bank plc
London


PowerGen plc
Rye House, Hertfordshire


Ranger Oil/PowerGen
South Denes, Great Yarmouth


Shell UK Exploration and Production
Shellhaven, Essex


Thames Power
Barking, London

The following projects have received approval under both sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Energy Act 1976, that is, to establish an electricity generating station fuelled by natural gas and to enter into contractual arrangements for obtaining a supply of natural gas as fuel for an electricity generating station, or to extend any such arrangements:


British Sugar Ltd.
Bury St. Edmunds


British Sugar plc
Wissington, Suffolk


BP Chemicals Ltd.
Baglan Bay, West Glamorgan


The Boots Company plc
Beeston, Nottingham


Hawker Siddley
Corby, South Humberside


ICI plc
Winnington, Cheshire


ICI plc
Wilton, Cleveland


Kodak Ltd.
Wealdstone, London


Lakeland Power
Roosecote, Cumbria


Leicester Energy
Leicester


London Transport Executive
Lots road, Chelsea


London Transport Executive
Greenwich generating station


PowerGen plc
Killingholme, South Humberside


Slough Estates
Slough


Thames Board Ltd.
Workington

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairmen of the area electricity distribution companies to discuss privatisation.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet regional electricity company chairmen regularly to discuss a range of matters.

Mr. Mullin: In the light of recent precedents, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that, should he in the near future find himself out of a job, neither he nor any senior members of his Department will go running to take places on the boards of any distribution companies?

Mr. Wakeham: I have two answers to that question, neither of which will be satisfactory to the hon.

Gentleman. First, it is a hypothetical question, and secondly, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said on the subject.

Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of East Midlands Electricity, will he ask him how the new project at Bilsthorpe colliery in my constituency for a high-efficiency, mini power station is getting on and when East Midlands Electricity, together with British Coal, will be able to announce a starting date with Government help?

Mr. Wakeham: I have met the chairman of that regional electricity company on several occasions, and I have no doubt that he will raise that subject when I next meet him. We are looking at the figures, and it is important to examine the economics in particular.

Mr. Skinner: When the right hon. Gentleman meets electricity company chairmen in the east midlands and elsewhere, will he point out that there is serious concern about the high cost of nuclear power and about the revelation today that Sizewell will cost another £1 billion, making the total cost £2.6 billion? Will the right hon. Gentleman also point out that it would be better to use coal because it is very difficult to get rid of nuclear waste? That is especially true of low-level nuclear waste, as the right hon. Gentleman experienced when he was Patronage Secretary and had to get Tory Members to stand up in protest about nuclear waste being dumped in his own constituency.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's recollection of history is not very accurate. Nor should he believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, even the headlines of some of our better-known journals. I suspect that the question of nuclear costs will come before the House before long.

Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. Friend accept that privatisation has been a success for many industrial users because it has introduced price competition between distributors and generators? Does he agree that the only reason why Labour opposes privatisation is that it would like to see industrial users pay more for their electricity?

Mr. Wakeham: I hope that better reasons will be given in this afternoon's debate for the Opposition being against privatisation, but we shall be able to deal with all that they have to say.

Mr. Morgan: I suppose that the Secretary of State realises that one electricity-rated company now in the state sector from which he cannot expect a job offer is Nirex. Does he agree that if the privatised area distribution boards are compelled to abide by normal stock exchange rules, which say that a company's audited accounts must be available going back five years or more, and which, with restructuring, the new companies do not have, it will be impossible to flog those companies? The only way of persuading the "Sids" to buy shares in them would be by a mass advertising campaign that would make the Albanian dictatorship at its Stalinist height or even Lord Young when at the Manpower Services Commission blush.

Mr. Wakeham: There were a lot of words in that question, but getting down to their fundamentals, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the stock exchange rules


necessary for the flotation of the regional electricity companies will be obeyed to the satisfaction of the people who have responsibility for those matters. Of course, there will be an element of advertising, as there has been in all privatisations. That will be beneficial in ensuring that the taxpayer gets value for money.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Marshall. I call the hon. Member because I thought that I saw him rising to his feet. If he does not want to ask a question, we shall move on.

Mr. John Marshall: I am always happy to oblige, Mr. Speaker, by asking a question. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that previous privatisations have been followed by increased investment and effective control of prices than before, and that electricity consumers can look forward to a good future under privatisation of that industry?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. Not only will customers benefit from privatisation but so will taxpayers and those employed in the industry.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) if he was merely taking his place.

Global Warming

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed with his colleagues in the European Community the implications of global warming for energy policy.

Mr. Wakeham: I last discussed with Community colleagues the implications of global warming for energy policy at the Energy Council on 21 May.

Dr. Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree with the statements made last week by Mr. Jim Smith, chairman of Eastern Electricity, the largest of the distribution companies soon to be privatised, that the industry should concentrate less on cutting back and conserving and far more on winning markets from British Gas? Is that any way to contribute to attempts to reduce global warming? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement as an example of the initiative that is needed in modern Britain?

Mr. Wakeham: I am in favour of the chairman of Eastern Electricity looking after the interests of his employees, his customers and his shareholders—

Mr. Dobson: You are the only shareholder.

Mr. Wakeham: At the moment it happens to be me, as the hon. Gentleman points out, although shortly there will be a lot of shareholders. I approve of the chairman—he is a first-class person.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless be aware that a fortnight ago the House was well represented at a conference in Ottawa of 23 Council of Europe countries, the Soviet Union and Poland, about global warming. However, he is probably not aware that that conference took the decision that the subject is so important and it is so essential to reach a global solution, that every Parliament represented there should, if possible, hold a two-day debate on the papers discussed at the conference with a view to reporting back to a further

conference to be organised by the Council of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend lend his considerable influence to support such a request when he receives it?

Mr. Wakeham: For a long time I had some responsibility for organising debates in the House. I no longer have it, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's request to those who do. I agree with my hon. Friend this far—the conference in Ottawa and the conferences that seem to be taking place regularly in all sorts of places around the world at the moment are important if we are to deal with global warming. He is also right to say that it is necessary for us to have international agreement if we are to deal effectively with those problems. That is why the Prime Minister announced on 25 May that, in the context of international agreements, the United Kingdom is prepared to stabilise CO2 emissions at the present level by the year 2005. That target depends on other countries being able to play a full part in an international response.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Secretary of State embarrassed when he meets his European colleagues that we are so half-hearted about our commitment to dealing with the problems of global warming? Why do our Government always say that we shall act if others act first? Is not the reality that we have a problem that we share with the world, which is so urgent that the target of doing a little by 2005 is too little far too late? Is not he embarrassed, and does not he want to be more effective as our Energy Minister?

Mr. Wakeham: I am very far from being embarrassed. The Prime Minister has taken the lead, with a demanding target. It is easy for those without responsibility here or in other countries with different problems to make forecasts and targets that they probably will not be able to meet. Our target is realistic, and if we can get international agreement on that level, we shall have done well.

Sizewell B

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the most up-to-date estimate of the final construction cost of the Sizewell B nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: Nuclear Electric has undertaken a thorough review of progress with the Sizewell B project, including the estimated cost to completion. The outcome of the review will be announced soon.

Mr. Illsley: The Secretary of State must be aware that recent estimates have put the final cost of Sizewell B at about £3.8 billion, taking into account the cost overruns, delays and lack of economies of scale due to the cancellation of the pressurised water reactor programme. It was also calculated that £2 billion can be saved by cancelling the project now. Does the Secretary of State agree that the time to cancel Sizewell B is right now?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not prepared to comment on speculation about the costs of Sizewell B. Nuclear Electric has recently reviewed the cost of Sizewell B, and I understand that it will publish its figure tomorrow. However, I shall seek to give the House an idea of the Government's consideration of Nuclear Electric's review during this afternoon's debate, if I should catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Dr. Michael Clark: If it is true that Sizewell B is costing considerably more than first envisaged, does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the nuclear industry, like so many others, cannot get construction costs right? Does he concede that Sizewell B is more than merely one additional power station? It is the forerunner of a series of power stations that are environmentally desirable, and an insurance policy for the future. When fossil fuel declines we shall still need electricity.

Mr. Wakeham: I am not prepared to confirm the speculative figures that I read about this morning.

Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that every penny of the overrun will have to be paid by the taxpayer and that it amounts to a subsidy to nuclear power on a scale that the Government have never accepted in respect of the mining industry? Has the Commissioner with responsibility for energy in the European Community, which has taken an interest in the sweeteners that were paid for the purchase of Rover, asked the Government to make a full disclosure in this case?

Mr. Wakeham: I have clear responsibility for taxpayers' money, of which I am well aware. That is why I am not prepared to comment on or to accept the speculative figures that appeared in this morning's newspapers. We shall make our comments at the proper time and in the proper way. That will be after Nuclear Electric has published its review. As for the coal industry, the right hon. Gentleman once had the honour to hold the position that I now hold. The financial assistance and grants that have been made available to British Coal under this Administration exceed, in real terms, the total assistance from all previous Governments since the industry was nationalised.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that behind Sizewell B is a nuclear industry that must not be allowed to disintegrate? Will he also bear in mind the long-term view that the nuclear industry will be essential to the United Kingdom when coal and natural gas run out?

Mr. Wakeham: Those are some of the many considerations that I have to take properly into account when considering those matters.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Nuclear Electric has published its figures and will he confirm now that the figures that he says Nuclear Electric is to publish tomorrow will cover the whole of the extra costs, including those that must fall on Sizewell as a result of the cancellation of the other three pressurised water reactors? Will he also confirm that the costs of the £200 million nuclear research write-off will fall on Sizewell? Finally, can he confirm that if Sizewell is to continue, electricity users will have to pay at least twice as much for their electricity from Sizewell as from any other electricity generating station?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman would have been well advised to accept my advice not to press his questions at this time. I do not believe that the answers that he will receive a little later will be entirely to his liking. The best plan is to allow Nuclear Electric to publish its report and then decide what is the best thing to do.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to review the 90 per cent. upper limit on the grant available under the homes energy efficiency scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): A number of representations have been received about the 90 per cent. limit as part of the consultation process. They are being considered.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the 10 per cent. shortfall is a formidable disincentive to the most needy families in Britain to take up this environmentally and socially valuable scheme? How can the Government be so miserly with those people and yet so profligate? Is not it true that there would be enough fuel efficiency grants for almost the entire population if Sizewell B were cancelled? Is not it acknowledged now that Sizewell B and the whole PWR programme was the worst, the most futile and the most wasteful civil investment decision since the Pharaohs decided to build the pyramids?

Mr. Baldry: The 90 per cent. grant is a continuation of the home insulation project. However, the levels of individual grant will be determined in the light of the comments received by means of consultation. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are taken into account as part of the consultation process. The principal aim of the new scheme is to bring about a further increase in the uptake of home insulation measures among low-income households. The scheme will, I believe, be successful in doing just that.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that loft insulation is the most cost-effective way of reducing energy consumption, so, when the Government are willing to give low-income households a 90 per cent. grant, that is an extremely good deal, which they should be encouraged to take up?

Mr. Baldry: Energy efficiency in the home extends beyond that scheme, and the promotion of energy efficiency in buildings generally is extremely important. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently presented the first national home energy rating certificate in support of the methodology and principles of energy labelling as endorsed by the Building Research Establishment. It is a welcome step in the development of the voluntary energy labelling of homes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently spoke at the opening of the one millionth new home to be built with mineral wool cavity wall slab insulation. Such initiatives will greatly help promote energy efficiency and energy savings in Britain's households.

British Coal

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Wakeham: I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Patchett: After meeting the chairman of British Coal, will the Minister be prepared to issue a joint statement with him assuring redundant and retired mineworkers that their concessionary fuel rights will be guaranteed unless they choose another option in future?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before with me and certainly with British Coal. It is a matter for British Coal, but I shall certainly ensure that any further representations that he wants to make are put to the chairman of British Coal.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Secretary of State aware that currently nods and winks suggest that even if the country had the unlikely misfortune to have a Conservative Government after the next general election, they would not privatise the coal industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with Lord Haslam and explain to him whether that change of heart is because the Government are to maintain the policy of contraction so that there will be nothing left to privatise, or because wiser counsels have prevailed?

Mr. Wakeham: I think that the whole House would wish me to congratulate Sir Robert Haslam on his recent peerage. He has been a distinguished leader of industry for many years and is a distinguished chairman of British Coal. Certainly I discuss many things with Sir Robert Haslam, but he does not seek to interfere with what is essentially a political decision. The Government's position is clear: we intend to bring proposals before the House for the privatisation of British Coal after the next election.

Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to secure a long-term future for the British coal industry is for its prices to be competitive and for it to develop the technologies to burn coal cleanly? Flue gas desulphurisation does not reduce, but increase, greenhouse gases. The development of new technology such as the fluidised bed and coal gasification will alow us to burn coal in the long term and reduce CO2.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the long term, the development of new clean coal technologies will be the future of the British coal industry into the next century, but in the meantime the considerable improvement in productivity and performance in recent years must be maintained for many years to come.

Mr. Holt: When my right hon. Friend speaks to the chairman of British Coal, will he take up with him the matter of dumping waste on the beaches of the north-east of England? It may be cost effective for the coal industry, but it is extremely expensive on the environment and ultimately will have to be cleaned up. Will my right hon. Friend give notice that licensing for such disposal will cease quickly?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there are strong feelings about this matter, for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible. I know that he is currently considering it.

Mr. Hood: Considering the overrun in the cost of nuclear power at Sizewell B, when the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he suggest

that a fraction of the expenditure on nuclear power should be invested in the Scottish coalfield to reopen the Francis and Monkton Hall collieries? Scottish coal is consumer friendly; it is the green coal of the future. Will he give a lead to the chairman of British Coal by supporting the redevelopment of the Scottish coalfield?

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman says, several matters in relation to Scottish coal are encouraging. Scotland has a considerable amount of low-sulphur coal, which is likely to become increasingly valuable, and its quality advantage will provide good opportunities for the future. I was pleased that Monkton Hall and Francis pits were mothballed rather than closed, because it shows that, in the right circumstances, mothballing is a feasible option. I am pleased that British Coal and Scottish Power are close to agreement about coal supplies to Longannet power station. It is not all doom and gloom.

Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most miners now own their homes and wish to be able to own shares in the industry in which they work? Why, therefore, did he say that the Bill to privatise the coal industry will be introduced only after the next election? Will he please introduce it in November? It could be quite a short Bill and it would be welcomed, particularly by miners.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has a formidable reputation for cutting through red tape and getting to the heart of matters, but the Bill to privatise British Coal will be complex, because under the licensing arrangements in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 a privatised British Coal could not retain responsibility for licensing our national reserves.

Mr. Barron: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the coal board will he discuss the most urgent matter in the coal industry—its low morale? Will he join Labour Members in supporting the chairman's efforts to win some long-term contracts for supplying electricity generators? Last year, British Coal was offering 10-year contracts to the new generators but it was stopped by the politics of Whitehall. Will he support the efforts of the chairman of the coal board to get talks going immediately to ensure future stability for the British coal industry after these short-term contracts?

Mr. Wakeham: In the friendliest possible way, may I say to the hon. Gentleman that part of the cause for the low morale, which is not as widespread as he suggested, may be some of the statements that he and his hon. Friends have made. British Coal secured a three-year contract with the generators which was benefical to both parties. Negotiations for a further long-term contract are continuing and I hope that satisfactory arrangements will be made.

Flue Gas Desulphurisation

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the flue gas desulphurisation programme.

Mr. Wakeham: Work on retrofitting FGD to the 4 GW Drax power station is proceeding well. In addition, I am considering applications from PowerGen for my consent to it retrofitting FGD to Ratcliffe and Ferrybridge C power stations.

Mr. Butler: Although Fiddler's Ferry power station was originally considered for flue gas desulphurisation, what progress has been made in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by burning low-sulphur coal, and does it represent a saving to the ultimate consumer?

Mr. Wakeham: The fitting of FGD equipment in general adds to the costs of producing electricity; it does not reduce them. How the power station at Fiddler's Ferry will be run is a matter not for me but for the company. I recognise my hon. Friend's legitimate interest in these matters.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of installing this equipment at Ferrybridge C power station, where a number of my constituents are employed? Is he aware that any greater delay in agreeing that the equipment should be fitted will mean a significant danger of more coal mines in the area being closed? Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider the application from Ferrybridge C power station, so that we can get on with the job and assure the people who work in the mining industry that at least their jobs will be made secure?

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's question. There certainly will be no delay on my part. If the initial 8 GW of retrofitting is completed, as we hope, it will be sufficient to enable British Coal to produce about 70 million tonnes of coal for the generators. That will meet the provisions of the European directive until, I think, 1998. At the moment, there is a commitment only to 8 GW of retrofitting. It will be some time before we must deal with the problem of extra retrofitting.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable caution is justified in approaching the FGD programme? Does he agree that the plant is large, the cost is great and the efficiency of the burning system is diminished by it? Could not FGD turn out to be an expensive cul-de-sac? Does he agree that it might be more productive to consider more efficient burning systems?

Mr. Wakeham: We have told the generators, "You must bring forward your plans"—they are not the Government's plans—"on what you believe to be the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the European directive." The generators must deal with that directive, and that is why we have reached the present position. My hon. Friend is right: it is an expensive and, in some ways, retrograde technology. I believe that it will play an important part in achieving the reductions that are called for, but other measures will be needed too.

National Power

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of National Power to discuss changes in conditions of employment.

Mr. Baldry: Conditions of employment are a matter for National Power's management.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that part of the terms and conditions of employment in the old electricity industry involved a concessionary purchase scheme whereby members of staff could purchase items sold by the boards? Is he aware that on the Saturday before privatisation, National Power sent a letter to all staff and ex-staff telling them that on the following Monday the

scheme would be cancelled? Was not that a deplorable action by National Power? When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of National Power, will he find out when the scheme, which existed for many years, will be reintroduced?

Mr. Baldry: Concessionary sales for National Power staff are not part of the conditions of employment; they are a matter for management. I understand that National Power is investigating alternative arrangements and has undertaken to inform staff, pensioners and trade unions in July about progress.

Offshore Installations

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to improve safety in the handling of dangerous substances on offshore installations.

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend is currently studying the possible extension of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 to offshore installations.

Dr. Moonie: I appreciate that this matter is not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I am sure that the Minister of State is well aware of the concerns that have been expressed, especially by my constituents who work on offshore installations. Will the hon. Gentleman guarantee to take careful heed of the views that have been expressed by trade unions on the importance of any changes?

Mr. Baldry: Offshore safety is of paramount importance and we have consistently stressed that we will not allow standards to be compromised for any reason. We have been reviewing the important contribution that the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations have made in improving safety onshore, and it will now be for the Health and Safety Commission to advise my right hon. Friend the Minister of State whether such regulations should be extended offshore. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will also have regard to comments and representations made to him by the trade unions and others concerned with safety in the North sea.

Community Insulation

Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many homes have been insulated by community insulation projects since 1982.

Mr. Baldry: More than 750,000 homes have been treated by the projects since their work began in 1982.

Mr. Burt: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him and the Government on the good work that has been done through the scheme. May I bring to his attention the problems caused in certain areas by the change in benefit regulations? May I also seek his assurance that the work on the scheme will continue and that his Department will pursue that good work as far as it possibly can and encourage its growth and development? The scheme has assisted a number of homes in my constituency, and I should like its benefits to the rest of the country to continue and prosper in the years to come.

Mr. Baldry: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. We are keen to ensure, wherever possible, that


work undertaken by the community insulation projects is not constrained in the run-up to the new home energy efficiency scheme. That new scheme will have about £12 million available in its first half-year of operation, and I am confident that there will be a substantial increase in the rate at which the work is done.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Official Visits

Mr. Hind: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Duchy; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have no plans to visit the Duchy estates in the immediate future.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that several of his tenants have expressed concern to me at the suggestion that one in 15 of them who are standard rate taxpayers may be called upon to pay more tax. They have also said that they might like to hear about the matter in an impartial manner on Independent Television News. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that those tenants will not be called upon to pay more tax and that they will be able to hear impartial reports about the matter on ITN?

Mr. Baker: To those of my hon. Friend's constituents who are concerned about the possibility of paying more tax, I have to say that it will not be a question of one in 15, two in 15 or even three in 15 paying more: all 15 will pay more tax under the Opposition's proposals. When the Leader of the Opposition talks on television about tax increases, it is a question of, "Watch my slips". I hope that ITN will not be browbeaten by a harassed and embarrassed Labour party.

Mr. Alan Williams: When the Chancellor visits the Duchy, will he confirm—as I am sure he will—that he meticulously differentiates between his role as a Minister and his fund-raising and publicity roles as chairman of the Conservative party? If he can give that assurance, why did not he observe the same rule when he visited Armenia recently? The Prime Minister told us that he went in his official role as a Minister but, in a response to me, he said that he travelled privately with Sir Jeffrey Sterling, who happens to be the second largest contributor to the Conservative party.

Mr. Baker: I was invited by a sponsor of the school in Armenia. The right hon. Gentleman cavils too much. Had he seen the school, he would know of the outstanding contribution that the Government and the individual sponsors have made in an area that has suffered a grave tragedy. Moreover, the school is a great tribute to the British workmen who completed the work on time, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot take more pride in that.

Environment

Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what environmental responsibilities his chancellorship involves.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As a member of Her Majesty's Government, I am closely involved in the development of future policy towards the environment.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend will no doubt remember with pleasure his days in Southport and the times that he played on the beach and made sand castles. He will therefore understand the enormous strength of feeling among Duchy residents in Lancashire about coastal pollution. Can he reassure those left in the county, and some who are still left on the beaches, that the beaches will soon be clean and that the Government are four-square behind those efforts?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend reminds me of my youth which I spent in Southport. That was some time ago. The amount being spent on environmental improvement in Lancashire and the Mersey basin constitutes one of our largest programmes. The Mersey basin programme will involve £4 billion over the next 25 years. North West Water will be investing £400 million next year and £100 million is being dedicated to cleaning beaches in Southport and Blackpool.

Dr. Cunningham: Why is it that for millions of people, including holidaymakers as well as residents in the north-west and the Duchy, it is unsafe for them and their children to bathe in coastal waters because the concentrations of coliforms, pathogenic micro-organisms and other harmful entero-viruses in the water present a serious risk to people? Is not it obvious that the Government's timetable for resolving the problems is hopelessly inadequate?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Labour Government who presided over a cut of 40 per cent. in capital investment for water authorities. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are spending about £3 billion to improve and clean water throughout the country and specifically in the north-west. The Labour Government ran the country so badly that they could not provide the funds for such important infrastructure developments.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that beaches in the north-west are cleaner now than they have ever been? When he next visits the Duchy, will he take the opportunity to suggest to the Labour leader of Lancashire county council that she joins other local authorities and pressure groups in the north-west in getting together with North West Water to make the beaches even cleaner?

Mr. Baker: If I believed that the Labour leader of Lancashire county council would listen to me, I would willingly pass on that advise. However, all the evidence is that she listens to no one, least of all to the Labour party. Lancashire county council is one of the biggest overspenders in the country. Last year its overspending was 17.5 per cent., which amounted to £123 million. That is why the community charge in Lancashire was so high. I re-emphasise what I said earlier. The Government's commitment to cleaning up the estuaries, rivers and beaches in the north-west is absolutely clear. More money will be spent on that over the next few years than has been spent in recent years.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many written parliamentary questions he has answered since last replying to oral questions in the House.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have answered two written parliamentary questions since last replying to oral questions in the House.

Mr. Winnick: No doubt that gives the right hon. Gentleman even more time to write those endless letters to some of my hon. Friends. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy have any responsibility for the articles that appeared in yesterday's Conservative newspapers to the effect that the deputy Prime Minister is to be dumped, or do those stories originate from No. 10? It seems odd. Perhaps the Chancellor will wish to come to the defence of his right hon. and learned Friend, who seems to be the victim of a vendetta.

Mr. Baker: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who asks me questions of this nature at every opportunity—he asked similar questions of my predecessor—that the last time he asked me a question, we were about 25 points behind in the opinion polls and now we are about 11 points behind. The passage of time has seen an unprecedented decline in support for the Opposition.

Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that, at the time of the previous oral questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Conservative party was 28 points behind in the opinion polls, whereas now it is only 11 points behind. Does my right hon. Friend think that, when he next answers oral questions, the Labour party will be decent enough to congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on putting us ahead in the opinion polls?

Mr. Baker: I would not like to suggest that the improvement in Conservative party fortunes is entirely due to my appearance at the Dispatch Box. In the past few weeks, the Labour party has been rumbled. When it talks of spending, the country now realises that that means increasing taxes. The great launch of its new manifesto has gone off like a damp squib.

Official Duties

Mr.Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list his official duties for 25 June.

Mr. Baker: Earlier today I met Duchy of Lancaster officials; later, I shall spend time attending to Duchy business.

Mr. Skinner: When I took over as chairman of the Labour party, it was six points behind in the opinion polls; When I left, it was 15 points in front. You can do anything with statistics.
As part of his official duties, does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster watch "Spitting Image"? Is he aware that the only puppet that is not human is him and that he is portrayed as a big fat slug? Is he sending a letter of protest or congratulation to the programme makers?

Mr. Baker: I am indifferent to the various caricatures of me: I find that the more significant one becomes, the more trenchant they become.
When the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was leader, or rather chairman—he was never leader—of the Labour party, it was doing better than it is now. I think that he should be chairman again. The Labour party is waiting for Dennis, and I hope that it will welcome him back as its chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

New Parliamentary Building

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has made to London Regional Transport concerning finance for the proposed development of phase II of the new parliamentary buildings over Westminster underground station.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Consultations on this subject with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have been taken as far as they can be at this stage.

Mr. Allen: Does the Lord President agree that every hon. Member who wants one should have an office of his own, with adequate space for staff and adequate office facilities—even Conservative Members who turn up only occasionally, and have other jobs in the City and the law courts? Will he re-examine the question of further office space for hon. Members and their staff in phase 2 of the new development? Will he also tell the House what the financial arrangements will be between the Government and London Regional Transport, and explain who will pay what percentage of costs to ensure that those much-needed facilities are made available to all hon. Members?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In answer to the second question, discussions between my ministerial colleagues and London Regional Transport will bear in mind what the Services Committee said about the share that was originally suggested. It remains the objective of the Committee that every hon. Member who so wishes should have an office by 1995.

Snuff

79. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how much snuff was administered to hon. Members by the doorkeepers in (a) 1969, (b) 1979, and (c) 1989; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In 1989 about 1.5 oz of snuff was consumed at a cost of 99p; figures for the earlier years are unknown. Only one hon. and learned Member regularly uses snuff; other hon. Members and Officers of the House do so only occasionally.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that snuff clears the brain and improves the health of those who take it? Will he name the hon. and learned Member who takes snuff from the principal doorkeeper, so that all hon. Members can judge the efficacy of the product that is available to us all?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would be quite improper for me to disclose the private habits of even an hon. and learned Member in that way. Equally, it would be unwise for me


to commend the taking of snuff for any reason. I am advised that, on the whole, its effects are deleterious to health.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the hon. and learned Member is a male Member of the House and that no hon. Ladies have participated in the taking of snuff over those years? In recognising that the taking of snuff is a male habit, will the Leader of the House say what proposals he has to improve the lives of the hon. Ladies in the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is an ingenious and attractive line of argument. I confirm that the hon. and learned Member is a male Member. I cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that female Members may occasionally partake, but I have no evidence to support it. I am always interested in considering and advancing proposals put forward by Lady Members of the House.

European Parliament

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he has any proposals to improve liaison between the House and the European Parliament.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government agree with the Procedure Committee that there are benefits to be gained from building up informal links between the two Parliaments. The House should be able to discuss this subject later this week. Meanwhile, the Services Committee is investigating the scope for improving Members' telephone and postal contacts with Community institutions.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to consider the systems that apply in other national Parliaments, such as the Folketing, to encourage liaison between Members of this House and British Members of the European Parliament who, after all, are fighting the same battle as we are?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly willing to consider any proposals identified by my hon. Friend. He will recall that the Procedure Committee concluded that there was no strong case for the introduction of legislation to establish formal contacts. I am sure that it is in the interests of the House and of the European Parliament to encourage in as many ways as possible the development of informal contacts.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that liaison between individual Members of both Parliaments is often very good, not least between the three Labour Members for the city of Leicester and the Labour Member of the European Parliament for Leicestershire, and not least concerning travesties such as the closure of Bewcastle house and De Montfort house old people's homes in our joint constituencies, without informing any of us in advance and without telling the old people, who had to find out for themselves? Is not that a disgrace in either Parliament?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even for the sake of finding something to say, I shall not commend the constituency interest that was so skilfully and characteristically advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a bit more about telephone call facilities to institutions including the Parliament in Brussels? I know that it means phoning wicked foreigners, which is an inherently dangerous activity, but, as we raised the matter about 18 months ago, it really is time that we made progress, like other Parliaments.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said in my earlier answer, that proposal is being considered by the Services Committee. Clearly it makes sense to establish workable arrangements for hon. Members to have ready contact with European institutions. I hope that the Services Committee will report on that matter as soon as possible.

Postage

Mr. Butler: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to extend the Speaker's warrant to cover postage of correspondence with overseas electors.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Mr. Speaker's frank used on some correspondence originating from the House is valid within the United Kingdom only. A proposal to assist hon. Members in sending official correspondence overseas is shortly to be considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that we have recently extended the franchise abroad to those who left this country up to 20 years ago? We are now receiving a good deal of correspondence from abroad, and that facility would be very much welcomed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that that extension of the franchise was undertaken with the support of the Labour party. It may raise the matter suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Rees: Should not we be careful? Whatever the intention of this question, we are not allowed to use free postage to deal with home electors. We are allowed to deal with constituency matters, but we are not allowed to write with stamped envelopes to electors in our constituencies on the basis of the electoral register. What can be done abroad should be no different from what is done at home.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I do not think that the matter is defined precisely along the lines that he suggests. One is entitled to use the free postage for parliamentary or constituency duties, but not for party purposes. As that is the position at home, it will be the position overseas, too.

Mr. Latham: When will something be done about communications with, for example, European Commissioners, which I understand are not covered by the pre-postage arrangement? As we have to write to them on behalf of our constituents from time to time, surely that should be treated in the same way as writing to a constituent or a Minister.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The range of the postal facilities proposed for communications with European institutions may extend that far. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.

Dr. Cunningham: Is not it not just curious, but unacceptable, that the Government are spending more taxpayers' money on advertising to encourage people living abroad to register to vote—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour supported it."] Welcome though it is, is not it unacceptable that more money is being spent on encouraging a small number of people living abroad to register to vote than is being spent on the programme for all the electors in Great Britain? It is the wrong way round and should be changed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must understand that most electors already resident in the United Kingdom are registered, and have been for many years. The point about the change is that overseas voters are a new category, so it is perfectly sensible that the information should be brought to their attention as a special innovation. I emphasise that the measure to enfranchise overseas voters was introduced with the support of the Opposition, and it should be commended to voters on that basis.

New Parliamentary Building

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects offices to become available for hon. Members' use in the new parliamentary building.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The latest forecast is that hon. Members and their staff will be able to occupy the offices on their return from the 1991 summer Adjournment.

Mr. Banks: I think that I will still be here.
May I, through the right hon. and learned Gentleman, compliment the architect and the workers who have constructed a most agreeable building on the other side of the road? I think that it will be a good example to other architects in London. As I believe in honesty and in open government, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an assurance that I will have an office in that building?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer any long-term assurances on the hon. Gentleman's electoral position in the House.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the 20 years that I have been here there have been extensive improvements in office accommodation, but I have noticed no improvements in parliamentary performance? I wonder whether more offices will lead to the Chamber and, above all, the Smoking Room being emptier.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that hon. Members have different views about the importance of office accommodation. I note what my hon. Friend says.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the subject of tomorrow's debate is aid to developing countries, but has the Minister for Overseas Development asked to make a statement on the horrific events in Iran? There are millions of people in this country who, whatever they think about the regime in Iran, are deeply concerned about and horrified by what has occurred, and they want the maximum amount of relief to he given. There was a passing statement by a Minister last Friday, but I and many other hon. Members would wish an oral statement to be made by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication that the Government propose to make a statement on this matter today. However, as the hon. Gentleman has correctly stated, there will be a debate tomorrow, when these matters will be relevant.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday there was a near miss between two aircraft over mid-Wales when a British Midland aircraft and a Dan Air aircraft came within four seconds of a collision. It is 'a very serious matter, because there have been a number of near misses over mid-Wales in recent years. Has the Secretary of State for Transport made an application to make a statement to the House because of the serious nature of the incident? If not, what can be done to prevail upon him to do so?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I have had no request for a statement, or any indication that the Government propose to make one, on that serious matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter with some difficulty, because the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was sheer magic and none of us would have missed it for the world. However, in the past, you have declined to take the supplementary questions worded in that way, referring to departmental Minister's duties for a specific day. Is that policy now to be changed because, if so, it may affect the behaviour of other hon. Members when we table our questions?

Mr. Speaker: Normally, matters of that kind would be brought to me by the Table Office. What was the question?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It was Question 74, about official duties.

Mr. Speaker: That was passed as in order by the Table Office.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to Question 79, which was tabled to the Lord President of the Council by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)? Do you agree that such questions, which cost probably 40 or 50 times more than the snuff in question, are a complete waste of money and of precious parliamentary time?

Mr. Speaker: I had better not give my views publicly about some of the questions on the Order Paper.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Opposition Day

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the privatisation of the electricity industry, which will cost every family in Britain over £1,000, damage the environment and undermine the balance of payments; and believes this too high a price to impose upon the British people.
First, we object to the electricity privatisation because the industry will be sold off for a third of its proper value. Secondly, we believe that measures to prevent acid rain have been reduced and put back. We also believe that the structure of the industry hinders investment in energy efficiency and energy saving. Thirdly, there is a danger of over-rapid depletion of our fuel reserves, especially natural gas. Fourthly, we believe that electricity privatisation is increasing coal imports, thus threatening the balance of payments. Fifthly, we object to the enormous sums of money that are being poured out on advice from City advisers and public relations advertising companies that are intimately involved with the Tory party. Sixthly, we believe that people are being expected to pay a scandalous price for nuclear power under the privatisation arrangements and it is about time that the Government came clean. For all those reasons, we believe that the electricity privatisation amounts to a bad deal for taxpayers and electricity customers.
The Secretary of State has been praised for sorting out the mess that he inherited from his right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). Although we recognise that it was a terrible mess, and to the extent that it is possible to sort out such a mess, the Secretary of State has sorted it out, I am nevertheless reminded of the dung beetle. We admire the skill and persistence with which the dung beetle moves it ball of dung, but our fascination with the process should not distract us from recognising that, at the end the substance being moved remains a ball of dung—and so it is, with the structure of electricity privatisation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The big fat slug will have to gobble it up.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend should not refer to slugs and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the same breath.
The distribution, transmission and generating parts of the electricity industry in England and those parts of the Scottish boards that are to be sold off are worth at least £38 billion. There are a number of ways of calculating those assets, but the lowest reasonable figure is about £35 billion. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is prepared to challenge that figure. When I asked him whether he could tell me the values of the various boards that were to be sold, he told me:
Asset values are contained in the relevant annual report and accounts."—[Official Report, 12 February 1990; Vol. 1511 c. 92.]

I checked carefully through those reports and accounts and the highest estimate that I came upon was £38 billion for the industry or £35 billion. That is the net asset value, using current cost accounting. It does not include the merits of taking over an industry with highly trained, highly skilled and highly educated staff who have gone about their job efficiently in the past and who a new owner can reasonably expect will go about it efficiently in future. All we are talking about is the fixed assets.
I take as an example the generating board's last annual report. Peat, Marwick, McLintock, the distinguished city accountants, said:
We have audited the accounts in accordance with approved Auditing Standards. In our opinion the accounts which have been prepared under the current cost convention give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the board and its subsidiaries.
The auditors of the other boards signed similar certificates. Pear, Marwick, McLintock also said that the fixed assets of the generating board alone amounted to £26 billion. If we take an average estimate of the total assets of the industry, we can reckon that it is worth £35 billion. Then we must ask: what price are the companies to be sold for? James Capel, the Government broker, is advising energy correspondents that they will be sold for about £10 billion. That is £5 billion for the distribution companies, £4 billion for the generating companies and just £1 billion for all the assets of the electricity boards in Scotland.
In a parliamentary answer, the Minister denied that James Capel is saying that. Because I usually believe the Minister and we expect honesty in parliamentary answers, I checked with the journalists who produced those articles. At my request, they have gone through their shorthand notes of the briefings from James Capel, and in some cases they cross-checked with the other broker, Warburg, and both brokers said that £10 billion is the sum for which they expect the industry to be sold.
If the industry is to be sold for only £10 billion, that is a shortfall of £28 billion or £25 billion, which works out at more than £1,000 per family. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the chairman of the Tory party, last week had the brass-faced cheek to talk about Labour spending and Labour waste. There will be no Labour waste like this. This is Tory waste with a vengeance. The sum of £1,000 per family—£20 a week per family for a whole year—is too much to lose on this shabby transaction.
British people and our European partners will be asked to pay a big price by way of increased or not reduced environmental damage. Measures against acid rain will be postponed and reduced. Until the Prime Minister made her speech at the United Nations, which the Evening Standard modestly described as
Maggie's plan to save the world",
we were going to have flue gas desulphurisation equipment on 12,000 MW of coal-fired plant. Now that figure has suddenly been reduced to 8,000 MW, and there is no real commitment to it—there is a firm commitment only to 4,000 MW.
The reason is that the Secretary of State has been informed by his fancy-pants City advisers that, if he goes through with flue gas desulphurisation on this scale, it will be hard to sell the electricity industry. In other words, his friends in the City are interested not in an environmentally friendly industry but only in a dirty one.
So, if right hon. and hon. Members will excuse the expression, flue gas desulphurisation has been put on the back burner and the Government have gone for cheap


options. They say that there will be a big increase instead in the burning of natural gas, but even British Gas has doubts that there are sufficient reserves on the British continental shelf to meet the demand for gas from the electricity generating sector on the scale envisaged. In any case, there are better uses for that gas. It should be used for direct heating or industrial purposes, or for chemical feedstocks, long before it is used for generating electricity.

Mr. John Marshall: What would the Opposition do about flue gas desulphurisation? Would they meet the cost from higher electricity prices or by a higher subvention from the taxpayer?

Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has attended previous debates, when we have made our view clear. We believe that Britain is under an obligation to meet its international agreements, which currently means fitting 12,000 MW of plants with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. We have also said that in so far as the generating companies persuaded the Government to postpone implementing that obligation, so that they will incur additional costs when it is eventually installed, the companies themselves—not their customers—will have to meet that cost. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] They will have to meet that cost out of the money that they would otherwise have paid their shareholders. It is entirely up to them.
If we do not have sufficient supplies of British natural gas to feed all the gas-fired power stations that are envisaged, the question arises of natural gas imports. We import too much of it already, which damages our balance of payments, and it would be absurd to harm it further. In any case, what would be the source of any additional supplies? The Soviet Union is entering a period of instability, as is the middle east. In the past, Algeria has been one of our major suppliers, but the recent local elections there can scarcely make anyone feel that there will be stability in that country in future and that it will be a continuing stable source of natural gas. We might find ourselves in the lunatic situation in which our gas supplies were vulnerable and we had no influence on their cost. Instead of going for flue gas desulphurisation, the Government are going for depletion of gas reserves and reliance on insecure foreign sources. We believe that that is too high a price to pay for electricity privatisation.
The Government propose switching instead to burning low-sulphur coal. It is a pity that they did not think of that over the past 10 years, when they permitted British Coal to close no fewer than 49 low-sulphur pits. That wiped out the Kent coalfield and, reduced the Scottish coalfields to one pit and the Welsh coalfields to five—and they were the coalfields that produced low-sulphur coal.
What will be the effect on our balance of payments if we have to import low-sulphur coal? I imagine that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a few views about that. A very cavalier attitude is taken by the Department of Energy and the big generating companies. What about the security of coal supplies and their price? We have been told that Department officials and the generating companies believe that supplies of low-sulphur coal will be secure and that the price will be all right. They are the very people who said in the past that we could rely on imported oil from the middle east, but then OPEC hit them and they were taken by surprise.
They are the self-same people—they continue in the same manner—who said that nuclear electricity would provide us all with cheap power, that it might be so cheap that it would be given away. The only giveaway now is that the truth is out at last about the cost of nuclear power, and it is costing electricity consumers a fortune. We believe that all that would be too high a price to pay for electricity privatisation.
One of our major objectives at the moment should be energy saving. Everything we do should be geared to promote that, but the new structure of the electricity industry will hinder energy saving, because it has been set up to promote sales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) pointed out, the chairman of the biggest electricity board in the country was talking in grandiose terms last week in Scotland about the job of the electricity industry being to compete with British Gas and to get as big a share of the market as possible. There was no talk about restriction, energy conservation or anything else. All he wants is more sales and more profit from them.
The problem is that, due to the ramshackle Parkinsonian regime that the Secretary of State has inherited, there is an unnatural break between electricity distribution and generation. If there were all-purpose electricity boards in various parts of the country, they could face an easy question. They could ask themselves how to cope with an extra 1,000 MW of demand, and could calculate whether it was better to invest money in reducing demand by 1,000 MW by improving energy conservation, or whether it would be cheaper to build new generating capacity.
In the present circumstances, we all know that the boards would opt to invest money in energy conservation, because it would be cheaper than buying new generating plant. However, under the new separated regime that the Government are wishing on the country, the decision would not be reached in such a way, because generating and distributing companies would make more money the more electricity they sell. That is why we are saying that, when Labour comes to power, we will impose an obligation on distributing companies to invest money in energy conservation and efficiency.

Dr. Michael Clark: While it is true that energy companies will make more money the more electricity they sell, is it not also true that consumers will want to buy less electricity because the less they buy the less money they will pay? Therefore, consumers will be interested in energy conservation.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman's logic is that we should double the price of electricity and so double the consumer's interest in energy conservation. That seems to be a perverse way to go about things.
Another enormous cost that the Government are imposing on the taxpayer and the electricity user is the cost of advice on privatisation which they are obtaining from the City, allegedly to the benefit of all. Unless the score has increased—I rather think it has and he has got his 50—at the moment, according to official figures, the Secretary of State has 47 companies advising him on privatisation, including 13 estate agents—which is unlucky for some, or indeed for all of us, as they are estate agents—and 10 firms of accountants. The electricity boards are employing many


more companies. More than 130 City companies are employed by the Secretary of State and the electricity boards to advise them on electricity privatisation.

Mr. Graham Allen: Any MPs?

Mr. Dobson: There is probably the odd MP here and there—I am not sure—but I trust that they are not Opposition Members.
The Secretary of State is spending more than £50 million on those 47 companies, but the boards say that they will not tell me how much they are spending, and I have written to all of them. Two boards told local newspapers who inquired that they did not know how much they were spending on City advisers. I got the journalists to ring back and ask how the boards were going to pass the cost on to the customer. They said, "We are working it out and it will probably be set out in our annual reports."

Mr. Skinner: They could be friends of the family.

Mr. Dobson: Yes, they could. I was struck by the thought the other day that the Tory party was once going on about a famous book called "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin." On the Tory side now, it is "Nigel lives with Barclays and Money" and "David lives with Cable and Wireless." There are quite a few of them around. It is a pity that the Secretary of State has not said that he will not take a job with any of these privatised companies. My hon. Friends are not given to cynicism, but we do not need to be cynics to ask whether the Secretary of State is fixing himself up with a cushy number in Eastern Electricity, or whether he is trying to protect the interests of the electricity consumer. We know what the answer to that question is.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: My hon. Friend has probably read in the press, as I have, that the Secretary of State for Energy may be the Prime Minister's adviser on the date of the next election. When the Tory party loses the next election, perhaps the cause of our cynicism will be confirmed when the Secretary of State for Energy takes up a job with a privatised company, just as the Secretary of State for Wales took a job with British Gas.

Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State for Wales did not just take a job with British Gas; he took a job with two firms of City advisers that advised on the sale of British Gas, both of which are also giving advice to this Secretary of State. It is a question of "double your money". I cannot understand why the electricity boards will not tell their customers how much they are paying for their advisers. What do they have to hide?
A more basic question is whether the Secretary of State needs all this advice. He proposes to sell the electricity industry for a third of its real value—for what, in a street market, might be described as two thirds off the list price. At that price, the shares could be sold on a stall in Petticoat lane. The Secretary of State should remember the old slogan, derived from the founder of Tesco: "Pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap." That is what the Secretary of State intends to do. He does not need 50 million quid's worth of advice to tell him how to do it.
As for the question whether the advisers are giving value for money, I commend all hon. Members to look at

the evidence, when the full details are published on Wednesday, that Kleinwort Benson gave to the Select Committee on Energy about its advice on the privatisation of the nuclear part of the electricity industry. During that public session, the company made it crystal clear, in answer to questions from my hon. Friends and, to be fair from Conservative Members that it did not have the faintest idea about anything to do with nuclear power. It said that all the information on which it had based its advice came from the Central Electricity Generating Board and that, if the CEGB's advice was wrong, there was nothing that Kleinwort's could do about it, because it did not know enough about the industry to challenge and question that information. What contribution did Kleinwort's make to the proceedings? It continued to advise the previous Secretary of State for Energy that it could sell off the industry, which proved to be impossible.
I have made inquiries as to whether Kleinwort's received its fee in full. By and large, the Government are in favour of payment by results. I gather that Kleinwort's got every penny of the fee that was due to it—not every penny of what it deserved, because in that event, it would have had to pay us. On the only occasion when evidence has been given about the question of this advice, those people gave bum advice that has damaged the interests of the country and even the interests of Conservative Members of Parliament.

Mr. Max Madden: Before my hon. Friend leaves that interesting line of inquiry and revelation, has he discovered whether any of these well-paid advisers are contributing to Tory party funds, thereby squaring the circle?

Mr. Dobson: I have not had time to go through them, but suspicions occasionally spring to mind, and I shall come to them in a moment.
The way in which the public relations firms are involved is best described by several American political phrases such as "gravy train", "pork barrel", "sleaze bucket"—you name it, they are in it. Let us consider first the public relations and marketing advisers.
The Secretary of State is not usually portrayed as an arrogant or puffed up person, but apparently he is not content with one public relations and marketing adviser to the Energy Department and the electricity supply industry, so he has appointed two—one from the Energy Department and the electricity supply industry and one for himself. Dewe Rogerson has been appointed public relations and marketing adviser to the Energy Department and Lowe Bell Communications has been appointed special public relations and marketing adviser to the Secretary of State. A director of Dewe Rogerson is a Tory Member of Parliament and Lowe Bell Communications is chaired by Tim Bell who, if rumour is correct, is scarcely ever out of 10 Downing street.
How were those people appointed? Another company called Valin Pollen International previously had the job of advising the Department and the industry. Tenders were then invited for the new separate jobs. I am told that three companies applied for each job and that Valin Pollen did not proceed with its application. Dewe Rogerson got one contract and Lowe Bell got the other. So I inquired a bit further and asked who was the unsuccessful applicant for the Dewe Rogerson job—and lo and behold, it was Lowe


Bell, and when I asked who the unsuccessful applicant was for the Lowe Bell job, lo and behold it was Dewe Rogerson.
In theory, there are rules governing such appointments, laid down and reinforced by the Prime Minister. Those appointments break four rules. There was no proper tendering procedure. Appointing a personal public relations adviser is contrary to those rules which also lay down that no public relations advisers may have direct contact with the press or the news media. We now know that Lowe Bell and Dewe Rogerson have contacts with the news media. The appointments involved intimate friends of the Tory party. The whole thing stinks, and the Secretary of State knows it.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that almost every major company in the country has direct interests in the Conservative party, because they are determined to keep the Labour party out.

Mr. Dobson: I should have thought that the last way to commend the propriety of those appointments was to say that the people concerned were determined to seek a return of a Tory Government rather than a Labour Government. That is not usually a basic criterion on which public contracts are awarded. The hon. Gentleman, who is an old Etonian, has let the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Allen: May I correct the record in one particular? The biggest contributor to the Tory party, British and Commonwealth Holdings, no longer contributes to the Conservative party as it went bust a fortnight ago.

Mr. Dobson: That organisation was probably doing something useful, whereas these people just have their snouts in the trough.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is raising very serious issues which have real implications for the quality and integrity of British public life? Does he recognise that, if those in local government—the Prime Minister and her colleagues are always calling for prudence and good behaviour in local government—conducted themselves in the way in which my hon. Friend is describing to the House, any qualified and respectable chief executive of a local authority would tell those local representatives that, if they maintained that course, or if it could be proven that they had pursued such a course, they could look forward to a considerable period of imprisonment?

Mr. Dobson: I follow my hon. Friend's point. Indeed, because of my concern about the propriety of these appointments, I wrote to the person responsible for judging the propriety of anything done by the civil service—its head, Sir Robin Butler. After immense delay, I received a reply from the Secretary of State saying that he took responsibility. At least Sir Robin Butler did not say that he agreed with it.
Another aspect of the privatisation was still to come—the award of the privatisation advertising contract. A panel was established to choose who should receive that lucrative contract. One member of it was—surprise, surprise—Mr. Tim Bell. Hon. Members will be aware that he was one of the three Tory party PR friends that the chairman of the Tory party wanted to appoint as special advisers to the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for

Education and Science and Secretary of State for Health, on the grounds that they were boring or were damaging the Conservative party's interest. That idea was so improper that even Mr. Bernard Ingham—a man not noted for his fastidiousness about the propriety of public behaviour—objected to it.
Who did the panel, including Mr. Tim Bell, choose for the advertising contract? It chose the firm Wight, Collins, Rutherford, Scott, Mathews, Marcantionio, whose chairman is Mr. Robin Wight, the man originally selected by the chairman of the Tory party to provide personal public relations advice to the Secretary of State for Education. What a racket! All those friends of the Tory party scrambled to get their snouts in the trough of electricity privatisation. The people of this country are paying a high price for those people.
I am not being unfair; I am not raising new standards of behaviour that are required of Governments. I shall judge the Government by the standards that they set, not for themselves, of course, but for local government. The new national code of conduct for councillors says:
It is not enough to avoid actual impropriety. You should at all times avoid any occasion for suspicion
The Government are guilty on all counts. They are guilty of double standards: others must live up to those standards, but not the Government. What is the result of all this?—National Power adverts in between the halves of world cup matches. I was going to say that, if that is a good use of public money, I am a Dutchman, but as Holland did not do too well last night, perhaps I am not.
I have had passed to me proposals for electric privatisation road shows. I have the document submitted by the people who won the contract. They will receive over £2 million for giving presentations to opinion leaders in Britain, North America, Japan and Europe. It is a good sign of Government priorities that they are prepared to spend £2 million on that, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said earlier, less than £500,000 on urging people to register to vote. Registering to buy cheap shares in electricity is a top priority, but registering to exercise democratic rights is a low priority. That has always been the Tory way.
That programme, which has been drawn up by Imagination Design and Communications, will lay on 41 road shows—26 in Britain and 13 abroad, in north America, Europe and Japan—at a cost of more than £2 million. That excludes the cost of the time of people in the electricity industry who will be taking part in it or helping to prepare it. The proposal will give presentations in major cities, and we have some wonderful sample menus of these events. People in Bristol will get lamb kebab, and in Paris they will get rack of lamb, if the French farmers will allow it in. In the United States one does not do too well; one gets spinach salad. In Japan, one gets an amazing concoction called roast duckling chipolata.
The document refers to "all-important institutional lunches". The company promises attention to detail, so much so that it will prescribe the folds that are to be made in the table napkins at these lunches. The Government proposed having a presentation in Northampton, but the company thinks that the Northampton presentation should be transferred to Leicester because there are more "high net worth individuals" in Leicester. I do not know what the people of Northampton will think of the idea that they are low net worth individuals. The company promises that there will be an "Executive Mothercare" service for


people doing the presentations. As those people go around the country, they will all get "Executive King Size bedrooms". The company further proposes to cater for all their "personal idiosyncrasies"—the mind boggles.
I was going to talk about the chaos over nuclear power, but it is impossible to make a sensible contribution until we know the estimates of the costs of Sizewell B. The Secretary of State said that he will talk about them. There is not much that we can say about them until we hear him. The right hon. Gentleman should come clean on the figures now and for the future. He should come clean also on something that he has refused to do and disclose the price that the electricity companies will pay Nuclear Electric for the electricity that they are buying from the existing nuclear power stations.
The Secretary of State will be praised, rightly, by the Energy Select Committee for letting it all hang out on the old nuclear costs, but I am afraid that, if he let the information out on the old nuclear costs and will not do so on the new nuclear costs, people will just think that he had got it in for Cecil. I cannot believe, even from the right hon. Gentleman's smile, that that could possibly have been his main motivation. People are entitled to know as much about the costs of nuclear power as the Cabinet. We are all entitled to know those figures, so that rational discussion can take place and rational decisions can be reached.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State might find himself in some difficulty in providing the costs? Every expert witness, without exception, who appeared before the Energy Select Committee conceded that it was not possible to calculate the true costs of nuclear power. The fact that the Government are shoving forward with their non-fossil fuel requirement—a percentage being for nuclear—shows that they are going ahead with that programme whatever the costs. No one knows those costs.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right to caution anyone about making guesstimates about the long-term costs and the time taken to construct nuclear power stations. Remember Dungeness B—construction started in 1965; it is still not working properly; and it is costing between eight and 10 times as much as was originally intended. I do not want to become involved in guesswork, and no one else should. The facts should come out, and we should have a debate in due course, with all the facts before us.

Mr. Jack Thompson: For a number of years, we have known that the cost of nuclear electricity generation has increased. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that Nuclear Power should sell some of its land assets to pay for some of the highly expensive electricity from nuclear power—for example, the site at Druridge bay in Northumberland?

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. So long as either the electricity industry or the nuclear industry possesses land at Druridge bay, at Denver in Norfolk or in Pembroke in south Wales, there is always a danger that someone will want to build a nuclear power station on one of those sites. It will not be a Labour Government, but it would be better if the sites were sold or used for some other purpose.
Electricity privatisation will cost the people of Britain a fortune. It will damage the environment, it is damaging the reputation of the conduct of public business by the sleazy nature of the public relations exercise and advertising contracts connected with it, and it ought to be stopped.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the privatisation of the electricity industry and the internationally recognised benefits which the Government's policies are already achieving through the introduction of real competition, the introduction of new and enhanced rights for the consumer, the emergence of new, cleaner, more efficient and cost-effective generating plant, through the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment and by ensuring that the needs of the customers drive the decisions of the electricity industry.'.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has had his fun and I hope to deal with the matters that he has raised. But there is one point with which I should deal straight away. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about the book value of the electricity industry's assets. His assertion that the cost of privatisation would be more than £1,000 per family does not stand up to a minute's scrutiny.
The historic net value of the industry's fixed assets in its last audited accounts—leaving aside nuclear assets—was 10 billion. The economic value of any particular company is derived not from the asset value that may appear in its book but from a calculation of what the assets are capable of earning. The current cost balance sheets of each electricity company seek to reflect individual assets at their net replacement cost and hence involve a considerable number of subjective judgments. Net replacement cost is not the same as the net cost of the asset to the taxpayer—the actual amount paid, less the amounts written off to date. The latter cost is reflected in the historic cost balance sheets of the companies, which, as I said, amount to about £10 billion.
There appears to be another mistake in the hon. Gentleman's calculations. He appears to have included the current cost of nuclear fixed assets—some £9 billion in the current cost accounts—even though the nuclear stations are to remain in the public sector. But what is £9 billion between friends? We know that to the Labour party it is an insignificant sum.

Mr. Dobson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the historic cost method of valuation is absurd in relation to the electricity industry? And he is surely not suggesting that the grid companies' assets, which will all be necessary, could be replaced at the historic costs at which they were bought. They would have to be replaced at current costs. That is why the assets are given that value.
I included nuclear assets deliberately. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that the nuclear assets were in fact liabilities. If one takes from the industry the nuclear assets and the nuclear liabilities, its value must increase. It was because the nuclear assets were liabilities that they could not be sold.

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that historic values are not the only values to bear in mind, but nor are current cost balance sheets. My point was that the


asset values represent the values that those assets are capable of earning. On that basis, we shall see to it that the industry is sold at its proper value.
It is a little over four months ago that I stood here listening to the Opposition voicing their misconceptions about privatisation. From what has been said today, it is clear that they have learnt little since then. Once again, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put the record straight.
The Labour party talks about the price of privatisation; the rest of the world talks about its benefits. While the eastern bloc moves to privatise whole economies and we advise them how to do it, the Labour party talks about central planning and state intervention. For all the Labour party's glossy pamphlets, it still lives in the past.
It is now more than 50 years since Herbert Morrison set out what he saw as the major benefits that would result from nationalisation. They were as follows:
The quality of service will tend to advance and the prices charged will tend to fall … The industries would be more efficiently and economically conducted and their boards and officers would regard themselves as the high custodians of the public interest.
That all sounded far too good to be true then, and so it has proved. Few of the anticipated economies of scale have materialised, and major new bureaucracies developed. Without competition, the state sector monopolies quickly became inefficient and overmanned, with low productivity, dissatisfied customers and frequent financial losses.
Privatisation is one of the great success stories. During the past 10 years, no fewer than 29 major businesses have been returned to the private sector. British Airways, British Gas, British Telecom, British Aerospace, British Steel, the water companies and many others have been exposed to new commercial and regulatory disciplines and they have thrived. Profits, investment and productivity have risen and customer service has improved.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the conditions for those working in those industries have improved materially, to their great advantage?

Mr. Wakeham: I quite agree: my hon. Friend adds to the list of successes in the privatised industries.
Because of those successes, politicians, officials, business men and others from around the world come to London to talk to us and to learn how to privatise their industries. Only at the end of March was the electricity industry reconstructed, when the new statutory and regulatory regimes came into force. However, we have already seen the effects of our policies on the electricity industry. The past few months have seen the emergence of fierce competition to sign up large industrial customers; that is competition not just between the generators and the generators and the regional electricity companies, but also between the regional electricity companies themselves.
New entrants are emerging into the generation market. The Lakeland Power project is a fine example of that, and 22 other projects have sought consents of one kind or another from the Department. In turn, National Power and PowerGen are responding by reviewing their plans and cutting their costs. As a result, the proposals coming forward for new generating plant are increasingly focusing on the development of new, cleaner and more efficient technologies. That will benefit the consumer by lowering costs. It will also minimise the impact on the environment.

The special provision that we have made for power from renewable energy sources as part of the non-fossil fuel obligation has given renewable technology the greatest boost that it has ever received in this country.
There is also competition in supply. Large customers now have real choice. They can enter negotiations not just with their regional electricity company but with any regional electricity company or any generator connected to the system. They are also showing interest in generating their own electricity. The benefits can be clearly seen in the lower prices that have resulted from those fierce negotiations. For the longer term, the regional electricity companies and generators are responding to that competition by actively promoting schemes tailored to customers' needs—schemes such as co-generation and combined heat and power.
We have introduced a spot market for trade in electricity, which determines the price of about £15 million-worth of electricity every day. We are the only country with a market that sets a price for electricity every half an hour, and that has real advantages. It puts pressure on generators to be cost-effective, because they must bid prices to be called on to run and it gives suppliers and customers the right signals about the cost of electricity. They can then plan much more effectively to meet their requirements at the least cost. Our policy is working. Competition has started and it is already having an effect on prices and efficiency.
What is the Opposition's policy? Well, it is rather difficult to answer that. As usual, their policy is full of contradictions, because half the Opposition Members believe in central planning and state intervention while the others realise that privatisation, competition and free markets are popular, even if they do not believe in them.
The first contradiction that I want to highlight in the Opposition's policy is a perfect example of that. The Opposition say that they want a single organisation to be responsible for ensuring security of supply. At the same time, they say that they want more competition. That is a complete contradiction. A single organisation responsible for supply is what I call a monopoly. Generators and suppliers cannot compete if they are controlled by one organisation. Clearly the Labour party does not know what it wants. It thinks that competition is popular, and it cannot give up the desire to interfere and plan the economy.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, if it is such a contradiction to have security of supply as an objective, that was the Government's objective for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry throughout the progress of the White Paper and the legislation, and our proceedings in the House? It was dropped only when they were advised by merchant banks that it would make the area distribution companies far more difficult to sell.

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the Government have maintained a better security of supply through the position that they have created. By virtue of their licence, the regional electricity companies will have to contract for sufficient electricity to meet the demands of their areas. That will be a matter for the regulator to settle. How those demands are satisfied within a competitive position is for them to determine, by competition. We believe that we have improved the position by providing a licence system


and a competitive market with substantial financial penalties for any company that does not contract for enough supply in the market.
The second contradiction is evident in the Labour party's policies for coal and the environment. It wants to be green; it also wants to be clean. However, it cannot face up to what that might mean for British Coal. Flue gas desulphurisation is not the simple answer. Although it reduces acid rain, it increases carbon dioxide emissions, whereas combined cycle gas turbine plant tackles both problems. Let me point out again that that is exactly the type of plant that is coming forward as a result of our policies.
Of course we need to make British Coal competitive in the new world, and that is why we are restructuring its finances. FGD is not the simple answer, however, and the Opposition cannot avoid the problems.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that, if FGD is not the whole answer, it is certainly the main answer to the problem of reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide from power stations?

Mr. Wakeham: It is certainly an important part of the answer for coal-burning power stations. I welcome the fact that, under the present plans, 8 GW are likely to be fitted as a minimum; that will enable the industry to compete in the market for a substantial volume of coal up to 1988. From then onwards—and it is a good few years away yet it must be competitive. In that case, the generators will no doubt fit further FGD by choice.
That is not the end of the list of contradictions in Labour party thinking. Labour is muddled on the question of nuclear power: it wants to close nuclear power stations, but it is outraged that privatisation should have shown the true costs and benefits. Nationalisation buried the costs of generation. Monopolies ensure that customers are paid. The Opposition may complain, but privatisation has now helped to bring into the open some of the issues surrounding nuclear costs. The need to assess nuclear power in terms acceptable to the market obliged all concerned—including the Government—to take a long hard look at the costs of the business.
In the end, it proved impossible to privatise nuclear power without giving the private sector unprecedented guarantees. The increased fuel diversity available from other sources also meant that it was right to postpone the three PWRs beyond Sizewell. Obviously, those decisions had an impact on the Sizewell project. Immediately after my decision on nuclear power last November, I asked Nuclear Electric, the public-sector company set up to operate our nuclear stations, to institute a thorough review of the costs of Sizewell B. A number of questions needed to be addressed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If one of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Labour party is that it does not quantify the cost of nuclear power
—I accept that it was hidden under a nationalised industry
—why does he not allow the cost of nuclear power to be separately quantified for the consumer? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been asked to ensure that that be done, but they have refused.

Mr. Wakeham: Under the privatisation proposals, when Nuclear Electric becomes a plc, although the shares will remain in Government hands, unprecedented amounts of information about the cost of nuclear power will be available as a result of our proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as a move in the right direction.
As I was saying, a number of questions needed to be addressed. First, what direct effect did our decision have on the capital costs of the station? I recognise that some programme costs that would have been spread over the follow-on stations would have to fall on Sizewell alone and that a single station project faced an increased risk of delay and contractual difficulties. Secondly, could Nuclear Electric still keep to the CEGB's timetable?
Thirdly, given that the capital cost was expected to rise, was the station still a worthwhile public investment? How much would it cost, in terms of pence per unit, to produce Sizewell electricity? In answering that point, it is necessary to take account of the avoidable costs of power from Sizewell. It would be ridiculous to revisit the economics of the station as though no concrete had been laid on the site over the past three years.
Those, then, are the questions. As to the answers, I can confirm that Nuclear Electric's report is a comprehensive piece of work that deals with all the searching briefs of last year. It is for Nuclear Electric to announce the results of its review, and I understand that it will do so tomorrow. However, it has told me that the selective misquotation of some figure is highly misleading. Presumably that is what was intended. I shall therefore arrange for the published material to be made available in the Library of the House.
It may be helpful if I indicate the conclusions of the report that I am likely to make. First, the project is not behind schedule. Rather, it is well in advance of the announced 72-month timetable. Secondly, all the new extra costs revealed by the report are attributed to the decision of 9 November and, in particular, the decision on the remaining three PWRs, which resulted in a saving of public expenditure of about £5 billion. They are not due to cost overruns at Sizewell B.
Thirdly, at the time of the original decision to proceed with Sizewell B, and using the rate of return then applicable, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was comparable with that from newly constructed coal-fired stations. The new costs do not undermine the original comparison. Fourthly, the important investment decision now, however, is to compare the avoidable costs of completing Sizewell B with the costs of obtaining the same amount of electricity with the most cost-effective alternative, gas. The economics of the two are broadly comparable on the basis of the 8 per cent. public sector rate of return, and there are, of course, other benefits from completing Sizewell in terms of its contribution to the reduction of fossil fuel emissions and diversity.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the completion of Sizewell B is vital if we are to retain the option of having power in the future that will be more environmentally desirable, and also that we have power stations in future that give us insurance against declining fossil fuels?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I confirm that the Government attach the greatest importance to the timely completion of Sizewell B, as a


direct contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and as an essential part of maintaining the nuclear option in the United Kingdom.
I say to my hon. Friend, who is Chairman of the Select Committee, that, as well as putting the Nuclear Electric report into the Library of the House tomorrow, I shall write to him with an amplification of the points that I have just made.

Mr. John McAllion: If the Minister is prepared to accept strategic arguments for the retention of the nuclear industry in Britain, why were not the Government prepared to accept strategic arguments for the retention of the coal industry in 1984, when they took only a very short-term view on whether pits were economic or uneconomic at that time?

Mr. Wakeham: Of course we want a thriving coal industry in this country. The Government's strategic view is that there should be a diversity of supply of fuels. That diversity means a thriving coal industry and a quantity of electricity generated by gas, by nuclear and by oil. It is a question of creating the right environment in which those different competing fuels can find their place. I believe that all of them can.

Mr. Dobson: As Nuclear Elecric is publishing its figures tomorrow, will the Secretary of State publish the figures for alternative sources of the same supply? Will he give us the gas and coal figures, or will we still be whistling in the dark on the comparisons?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall give the hon. Gentleman all the figures I can. I recognise that I must give him sufficient figures. Initially, I shall give details of the figures in my response to the Select Committee. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to study the information also.
Contradictions again appear when the Opposition consider the costs of privatisation. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is addicted to sensationalism, and uses phrases such as "rip-offs" and "scandalous rip-offs". He makes misleading or misconceived comments about estate agents and "friends in the City".
Almost in the same breath, he accuses the Government of giving away the industry. He also accuses us of raising prices to the consumers. Most people recognise that that would enhance the value of the industry. The hon. Gentleman does not realise that, in the market, the scope for manipulating prices at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats is less than in the centrally planned world of the Labour party. What does he mean? Surely he accepts that, to gain proper value for the assests, advice is needed on their value and how to market them. The Labour Government used advisers for similar reasons when the were in power. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is bringing forward another new policy for the Labour party—that it will seek to buy and sell public assets, if it should ever have the chance, without proper professional advice.
The estate agents that the hon. Gentleman derides are property valuers, whose task is to ensure that the industry's land and buildings are properly valued when the companies are sold. Imagination—a stolen copy of whose presentation document the hon. Gentleman seems to have received—is responsible for staging the presentation of the

companies to investors in Britain and overseas. The budget for that has not been finalised, but my Department and the industry will ensure that we get value for money.

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman says that the cost has not been decided. Can he confirm that the contract has been let? If so, why is he letting a contract when he does not know how much it will cost?

Mr. Wakeham: The budget has not been finalised. We know that the firm is doing some work for us. It is riot the practice of the Government—or, indeed, of a Labour Government—to give individual details of individual contracts. I shall go no further than that, except to say that we shall get value for money.
It is clearly essential that the presentations are made; otherwise, the effort of marketing the industry will be weakened, with clear consequences for the price that the Government will get for it. Opposition Members seem to have their own friends in the City. If, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has suggested, we did not market the industry, we would risk selling it for less than its proper value.
The hon. Gentleman made much of the accountants who are employed by the Government and the industry. Is it too much to expect him to understand that reporting acountants are a legal and regulatory requirement for a public flotation? I fear that it is.
Perhaps that is another example of the contradictions that appear in everything that the Opposition say. I suppose that I should not be surprised at the Opposition, because their policies are full of contradictions. They make lots of commitments, while claiming that they would cost no money. They want lots of competition in electricity, but they also want central planning by a monopoly. They want lots of coal, but no carbon dioxide. Their only consistency is to say what they think people want, and to hope that no one notices the contradiction.

Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, of the 47 firms advising him on the sale, costing the taxpayer £52 million, I believe, not one is advising him on the interests of the consumers?

Mr. Wakeham: If he understood these things, the hon. Gentleman would recognise that, through the Electricity Act 1989, the Government have given the consumer the strongest ever protection. We have set up a regulator to look after consumers' interests. We have given him statutory powers with which to conduct his work. That is infinitely better protection than has ever existed before. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for that, rather than criticism.
The Labour party talks about the price of privatisation. The rest of the world talks about its benefits. What about the price of nationalisation, the price of state control? the eastern bloc knows the price. It is difficult to quantify just how much Great Britain has lost in terms of skills, profits and opportunities for industries in the public sector. Being divorced from the disciplines of the free market weakens incentives. It means a loss of the necessity to control costs, to relate earnings to productivity and to remain competitive.
I shall give a simple example. Under the last Labour Government, the price of electricity to domestic consumers rose to 22 per cent., whereas, in five years of this Government, it fell by 7 per cent. The competitive


pressures that we have placed on the industry are designed to ensure that prices continue to fall. The Labour party says that it has cost £1,000 per family to privatise the industry. That is nonsense—

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Money for the boys.

Mr. Wakeham: That is nonsense. The industry is worth what it can earn—not necessarily the book value of the assets or some number that has been dreamt up by the Labour party. On the contrary, it is clear that privatisation has brought benefits, and it will go on bringing benefits. The rest of the world knows that. Central planning is discredited everywhere, except by the Labour party. It is well known that the Opposition have no policies. Our policies are sound and successful. I urge the House to reject a return to the past, and to vote for our amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Having listened to the Secretary of State, spent many hours in the Select Committee on Energy investigating the privatisation of the electricity supply industry, and read the subsequent reports, one thing is obvious to me. If all the members of the Select Committee could agree with me openly, I am sure that they would when I say that the Secretary of State and his Department have refused to take note of some excellent advice. I refer to the Select Committee's report of July 1988 on the privatisation of electricity. That excellent report advised—I shall not say that it warned—that the Secretary of State and his Department were moving far too rapidly if they were hoping to produce legislation that would be worth while and efficient and would ultimately benefit the British taxpayer.
The Government stand charged with refusing to take the advice of their own Select Committee on Energy, on which their own supporters formed the majority. I believe that I have advised the House before that it is worth noting that that document saw the light of day only because—unfortunately for some people—Conservative Members formed the minority at one Committee sitting, at which we were to decide whether to investigate the privatisation. It was rumoured—I put it no stronger than that—that the then Secretary of State was not very keen on the investigation taking place and that pressure had been put on certain hon. Members.

Mr. Peter Rost: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all the Conservative Members who served on the Select Committee were opposed to the inquiry?

Mr. Lofthouse: I am certainly not suggesting that. I am simply saying that, if the Conservative members of the Committee had been present in force that day, it is doubtful whether the investigation would have taken place. However, it did, and the Committee produced an excellent document, which was eventually ignored.
Although the debate is about the price of electricity privatisation, I am sure that the House will not be surprised if I highlight the effect of the electricity privatisation on the mining industry. I have spoken on this subject many times, without having achieved much, but I am as convinced as I always have been of the devastating

effect that it will have on the mining industry. I hope that I shall also expose the folly of coal imports, as I have repeatedly done in the House over many years.
Britain has traditionally been self-sufficient in the supply of coal to power stations. However, in the run-up to the privatisation, the electricity generators, backed by the Government, are planning to import large quantities of coal. All current evidence is that that will not only lead to massive job losses in the coal industry, but will increase the trade deficit by up to £1,500 million per year.
A recent report by the Oxford economist, Dr. Terry O'Shaughnessy, for the Coalfield Communities Campaign, shows that, because of balance of payments constraints, every 10 jobs lost in the coal industry could lead to a loss of 30 jobs in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. The question is, should the United Kingdom retain sufficient capacity in its coal industry to meet the needs of the electricity generators, or should it switch to relying on imported coal?
I noticed that, at Question Time this afternoon, the Secretary of State said that maintaining 8 GW of flue gas desulphurisation would be equivalent to 70 million tonnes of coal. If that is the case, and the coal industry is to be run down even to the extent that Sir Robert Haslam has mentioned—I believe that it will be far worse than that—by the time the FGD plants are available and working, this country's coal industry will be unable to meet demand, because we will have closed the pits and sterilised millions of tonnes of coal.

Mr. Wakeham: I know of the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in this matter, and I want to be sure that his recollection of what I said is correct. I said that my understanding is that, with 8 GW of FGD fitted, the coal industry would be enabled to sell up to a maximum of 70 million tonnes of coal per year and to meet the terms of the European directive, which would enable the industry do so for years to come. That does not deal with the CO2 question or with that of competitive prices, but on the straightforward question of acid rain, 8 GW would, with other measures, enable a target to be achieved. That is what I said.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is it not a fact that, if the coal industry is run down, even to the extent suggested by Sir Robert Haslam, by the time the flue gas desulphurisation plants are available for British Coal, our mining capacity will not be sufficient to meet the demand? That will cause a major problem. If, in the short term, we import coal at the expense of the British coal industry, we shall run down our industry to the extent that we cannot meet demand. We shall sterilise millions of tonnes of coal which we shall never be able to mine.
Short-term price considerations suggest a switch to imports. At present, foreign coal at United Kingdom ports costs about £35 a tonne, compared with £42 a tonne for British coal. Only about half of British pits can compete with imports at today's prices. However, there are wider micro-economic considerations.
In his report, Dr. O'Shaughnessy draws on his exhaustive study of the current account balance rate of unemployment, or CABRU as it is referred to. That is the trade-off between the balance of payments deficit and the levels of income and employment. The report shows that, during the past 30 years, there has been a marked deterioration in the United Kindom CABRU. That means


that, to eliminate the trade deficit, unemployment must be much higher than before. The scrapping of capacity in an industry which produces a tradeable commodity, such as coal, has an adverse effect on the country's ability to pay its way internationally. In the long run, Britain can afford to import goods only to the extent that it can sell home-produced goods abroad. If we import coal, it means that we must import fewer other goods and, in turn, domestic demand must be kept in check.
Unless there is a corresponding expansion in capacity in some sectors producing tradeables, the impact of additional coal imports is that unemployment through the economy must be maintained at a higher level than previously. The United Kingdom surplus from trade in energy is already disappearing fast because of a decline in North sea oil and an increase in gas imports Additional coal imports would worsen the position significantly. So far, manufacturing exports have singularly failed to plug the gap.
Dr. O'Shaughnessy examines four scenarios, involving coal imports to power stations of 10 million, 20 million, 30 million, and 43 million tonnes a year. The last is the level to which imports might rise if United Kingdom coal was forced to compete on price alone. The scenario shows that 43 million tonnes of coal a year would lead to 47,000 redundancies in British Coal, a £1,500 million increase in the United Kingdom's annual import bill and an £85,000 increase in CABRU—the increase in unemployment necessary to hold back the trade deficit. Those calculations are based on current coal prices and exchange rates. If, after scrapping United Kingdom capacity, world coal prices rise or the exchange rate weakens, the unemployment cost to the economy as a whole could be 30 jobs for every 10 jobs lost in the coal industry.
The main technical barrier to increasing coal imports is the limited capacity of the ports suitable for use by the power generators—I am sure that we shall hear more about that later in the debate—although proposals for new facilities on the Humber, Tees and Thames and at Milford Haven are at various stages. The report argues that the Government should take advantage of the temporary limits on ports capacity. If Britain is faced with paying more for energy imports, it will be difficult to resist a fall in the exchange rate and further inflationary pressures. The sensible step is to reassess the consequences of the headlong rush into coal imports.
References have been made to the flue gas desulphurisation programme. FGD is a process by which sulphur dioxide is removed from the waste gases produced by burning fossil fuels. Unless it is removed, large quantities of SO2 cause acid rain. The United Kingdom is the largest emitter of SO2 in western Europe and one of the largest exporters of SO2 emissions to other countries. In 1987, 86 per cent. of the United Kingdom's SO2 emissions resulted from electricity generation. FGD removes about 90 per cent. of the sulphur from the waste gases.
Under the European Community large combustion plants directive, which was agreed in June 1988, the United Kingdom is committed to reducing its SO2 emissions from existing plants by 20, 40 and 60 per cent. of its 1980 emissions by 1993, 1998 and 2003 respectively. The CEGB estimated that compliance with the directive would require a 12 GW programme of FGD retrofits, costing £1.8 billion at 1989 prices. If we are to get anywhere near meeting the directive by the agreed years, we need a programme of 12 GW. If we fail to do that and if we are to meet our

electricity demands, we cannot avoid importing a large amount of low-sulphur coal. That is the decision facing the Government.
Are the Government prepared not to further encourage investment in FGD by the private electricity companies? The chief executives of both National Power and PowerGen told the Energy Select Committee that they will make a purely commercial judgment, whatever the effect on our own natural energy resources. They suggest that it will be necessary for British Coal to reduce its prices by £5 or £6 a tonne less than imported coal to finance the retrofitting. That is an impossible task for British Coal. Despite all its recent achievements, it could never achieve that.
The Government must make the decision. Are they prepared to extend their programme to run down the natural resources of coal to the extent that millions of tonnes of coal will never be mined, so that eventually we have to rely on our foreign competitors to meet our demands? That is not a wise policy.
On 7 June 1990, the Energy Select Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve, produced a report entitled, "The Flue Gas Desulphurisation Programme". I do not want to detain the House too long, but the report is up to date and the House should have it brought to its attention. Paragraph 56 of that report, headed "The Coal Industry" says:
The major issue arising from this Report is clearly the impact of the generators' plans on British Coal and the coalfield communities. Even if, as the Government states, it is entirely a matter for the generators how much British coal they use, a substantial decline in their purchases would have important consequences which would be matters for Government, including both the financial costs and the social costs of pit closures and the future security of energy supplies.
Paragraph 57 states:
A balance will need to be struck between, on the one hand, the interest of consumers in cheap electricity prices and of the Treasury in the maximum possible proceeds from privatising the ESI and, on the other hand, the long-term interests of the coal industry and the coalfield communities. In particular, private sector generators cannot be expected to take account of national interests, and pit closures are irreversible: deep-mined coal capacity cannot be turned on and off like a tap. We are not convinced that the Government has yet faced up to the dilemma which confronts it over the future of Britain's coal industry.
Emphasised in bold is the observation:
It is essential that these issues are not side-stepped. As a priority the percentage of electricity that will be generated using British coal in 2003 should be appraised. In the light of this, of the increased use of gas and of the freeze in the nuclear programme, the effect of limiting FGD to the 8 GW proposed should be evaluated with regard to the possibility of tightening up limits on emissions; the restrictions it will place on British coal in the absence of other clean-burn technology.
I hope that the Secretary of State will, unlike his predecessor, give serious consideration to that report.
The Government should reassess their policy on the production of electricity by nuclear power. The privatisation of electricity has highlighted the unknown costs of nuclear power. No one who has given the matter recent study would disagree. We know that research and development expenditure on the fast breeder reactor programme alone totalled £4 billion at 1988 prices. The disastrous decision was made to order four different AGR devices from different consortia when there was scarely sufficient expertise to justify one.
For many years, the public have been told that the cheapest form of electricity generation is nuclear power, but we all know that that claim has gone out of the window. Either there has been a disastrous mistake or it is deliberate policy to market nuclear. I hope that it is the second, and that, in making the case for nuclear, the Government have kept its true cost from the public and from the House.
All the expert evidence given to the Energy Select Committee's recent inquiry confirmed that the true cost of muclear, including decommissioning, is unknown. I believe that no one can honestly come along and say—no one has yet—"Yes, including decommissioning costs, this is what electricity generation by nuclear power will cost."

Sir Ian Lloyd: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman follows such matters very closely. He always presses the case for the coal industry with great conviction, but can he really sustain his argument about the non-availability of information on nuclear costs? I have a copy of a document entitled, "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity from Power Stations for Commissioning in the Period 1995–2000" published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, based on 18 countries in the OECD. The report contains a mass of information on nuclear generating costs.
Although it does not necesarily come out unequivocally in favour of nuclear power, its most significant conclusion is:
The nuclear advantage in the reference case persists, for most countries, at common load factors for coal-fired and nuclear plants well below those assumed. However, the expectation which was shared by a number of countries in 1985, that the total cost of nuclear generation would be less than the fuel costs of coal-fired generation, no longer exists in any country covered in this study.
The report concludes that assumptions about nuclear and conventional generating costs depend entirely on predictions made about load factors, discount rates and fuel costs. As the report points out, it is difficult to arrive at any general conclusions on that issue.

Mr. Lofthouse: That was the point I was making—that no one really knows the true costs. I notice that the report does not mention decommissioning costs.

Sir Ian Lloyd: It does.

Mr. Lofthouse: If so, I apologise. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's points do not differ in any way from those that I made. The experts who presented evidence to the Select Committee all agree that it was not possible to estimate the true costs.
If the Government fail to take action on flue gas desulphurisation and to support the British coal industry over the next few years while FGD plants are installed—which I believe should be to the extent of 12 GW—a further 41 collieries, employing more than 35,000 men, will be lost. If one adds others involved, such as those in workshops and administration, total job losses could reach 50,000. If one then allows for the knock-on effect on other industries and services, the final job losses in coalfield areas could number 100,000 between 1995 and 2003. If mining communities are to be destroyed in that

way, the Government will have a major obligation to prepare and encourage alternative industries in those communities, before they are wiped out.

Dr. Michael Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), because he always defends the coal industry sincerely and effectively. I agree with much of what he said, but I shall take a different tack on another aspect of energy in the few words that I say.
The Government have a proud record on privatisation, starting with that of council houses. Although that was opposed when first suggested by the Government, it is now accepted by the majority of people and is now the official policy of Opposition parties.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government also privatised British Airways and the British Airports Authority, both of which subsequently expanded. The Government privatised British Steel, British Telecom and British Gas, and all three have become more profitable and found more money for investment. Those industries have grown, offer more secure jobs, and are in a better state than they were in public ownership.
Despite all the controversy surrounding the privatisation of the water industry, it too is gearing itself up for the investment that is demanded by those having an interest in the environment. Those and many more privatised industries will not be returned to social ownership under a Labour Government, if there should be one, because the Opposition know that to return them to public sector ownership would be neither desirable, popular nor economic good sense. Nor would it win votes or elections.
In all the areas that have been privatised, there has been initial opposition, yet as soon as the privatisation process is over and the arguments have settled down, in every case private companies have been accepted and it has also been accepted that they are more effective and efficient than before. The same will be true of electricity privatisation when it is completed.
We know that privatised industries work better. The staff are better motivated, they have better rewards, and they are more ambitious for the success of their industry that they were before. The privatisation of electricity is a major undertaking. It is a strategic industry—the base for so many other industries. If we do not have a proper power industry, we cannot have manufacturing and many of the other industries on which we rely.
Electricity will be the largest of all the privatisations and the most complex. It has many constituent parts, all of which have to go into the private sector. So far, progress has been remarkable. Staff have been allocated to their now companies. Assets have been divided and allocated and new plcs have been created and are working: generators, a grid company and distribution companies.
Most remarkable of all, the privatisation programme is going ahead on schedule. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the other Ministers and staff at the Department of Energy for keeping to a tight schedule, despite the many squalls that would attempt to blow them off course.
The morale of staff in the electricity industry is high, contrary to predictions and expectations, and I know from my personal contacts with them that they are looking forward to having greater freedom to operate the


companies and the industry in a way that they can predetermine. I have confidence that when the stock of the privatised electricity companies is sold off, there will be a successful launch. I am sure that most, if not all, Conservative Members will become shareholders, and I have a shrewd suspicion that many Opposition Members will become shareholders, too.
What about the benefits of privatisation? We should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) for the way in which he contrived to bring competition into the privatisation of the electricity industry in a variety of ways. Competition was the catchword, and he was determined not to privatise the electricity industry as one giant monolith, as had been done with gas. It is a credit to him that the electricity industry was broken down into so many constituent parts, and that competition was encouraged in that way.
There will be many alternative sources of supply. There will be a non-fossil fuel quota, which will admittedly be protective for the nuclear industry, but it will also encourage alternative energy sources—renewable and benign—to generate and put their share of electricity into the grid.
I believe that the greatest benefit of privatisation is cost transparency, which the Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned. As a known supporter of nuclear industry, I still welcome cost transparency, which has shown that nuclear costs are high. I support the nuclear industry, not only because I used to think that it was a form of cheap electricity, but because I thought that we had—and I still think this—an obligation to find sources of electricity for future generations, apart from burning fossil fuels, which are declining every year and some of which will be needed in years to come as premium fuel for aviation and road transport.
Therefore, as a scientist, I saw the need to develop a new energy source, and I thought that nuclear electricity was that new source. Twenty years ago—and until 20 months ago—we were told that nuclear energy was cheap and we believed it. I do not think that I am making myself appear to be the only gullible person in the House or in the country by saying that I believed it. There was so much propaganda telling us that nuclear was cheap, from so many different sources, that many people thought that it must be true. Now we know that nuclear is not cheap, but I am delighted—I share equal delight with the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford—to find out a cost that is closer to the truth, even though we do not know the 100 per cent. truth. The cost that we are now being given is closer to the truth.
I must tell the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford and other hon. Members in the so-called coal lobby that it is not appropriate for them to rejoice at the nuclear industry's discomfort and to complain that the effects of privatisation on the coal industry are unfair or undesirable. We must have not only equality of cost transparency, but equality of consequence.
What are the effects of privatisation on costs? We know that in the nuclear industry high costs are associated with decommissioning and the back end of the fuel cycle. The inclusion of such costs in the prospectus for the sale of the nuclear industry, along with other generating stations, under the umbrella of National Power, was known to depress the price of that grouping, and was thought to make it unsaleable at a price that would benefit the

taxpayer. Therefore, the Secretary of State made the right decision to withdraw nuclear electricity from National Power.
Of course, there were consequences for the nuclear industry. It meant that the family of PWRs that were to be built would no longer be built, because the nuclear industry stayed in the public sector and public funds were not available for that development. For the sake of the taxpayer it was right that the nuclear element was taken out of National Power, because that way we shall get the best price for National Power and we shall satisfy the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras by ensuring that taxpayers get a good deal.
The coal industry will suffer under privatisation to some extent, but it will suffer anyway for environmental reasons. The suffering caused to the coal industry by the present environmental regime is exacerbated by the fact that privatisation is taking place at the same time. Privatisation will put pressure on costs. As the electricity industry is privatised and competition introduced, the generators will want to buy coal at cheaper prices and obtain contracts at keen prices. The price will be forced down, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said. One consequence of trying to buy coal at cheap prices may well be the importation of coal. I do not welcome that any more than the hon. Gentleman did, but there has been a massive increase in productivity within the coal industry in the past four years and there is every reason to believe that during the next three or four years productivity will continue to increase until British coal can compete quite effectively with imported coal.
As regards sulphur dioxide, of course, burning British coal, which has a higher sulphur content than some imported coals, means that sulphur dioxide will go into the atmosphere, and flue gas desulphurisation is essential to bring that under control. If the electricity industry had not been privatised, the nationalised industry mught have put in more flue gas desulphurisation and might have put in the 12 GW that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford called for. It seems that the privatised industry will put in only 8 GW, which will have an adverse effect on burning British coal.
As the Secretary of State mentioned, while it has been decided to burn more gas and while coal/gas price ratios remain at the preset level, the use of coal will probably decline at the expense of gas. Gas, however, will not stay at its present volume or price for long. Gas prices will rise and gas reserves will be depleted. We shall need to burn more coal. At that time coal will be cheaper. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford that if we are to see a dip in the demand for coal now and if we are to anticipate a rise in the demand for coal in future, it is essential not to allow our coal reserves to be sterilised so that we cannot get at them when we need them.
As for carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas that creates the blanket in the upper atmosphere that is responsible for global warming—we cannot get rid of it, whatever we do. We could scrub it out in the flues, but the cost would be enormous. We have to accept that coal produces greenhouse gases. If we are to burn more coal, we must try to get the maximum amount of energy out of the coal that we burn, thus producing less carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. To do so, we have to continue to invest in coal-burn technology and in combined cycles. We must also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash


(Mr. Rost) constantly tells us, invest more in combined heat and power. If we want to burn more British coal yet stay within the European directives on acid rain, we must have coal-burn technology—perhaps fluidised bed, or the process that is being developed at Grimethorpe.
For the sake of both the British coal industry and the environment, I call upon the Secretary of State for Energy and his Ministers to consider carefully how much money should be expended on coal-burn technology. It would be a two-sided reward. We could protect both our indigenous coal industry and our environment by investing in coal-burn technology.
In due course I shall propose—I believe that my proposal will be well received—that the Select Committee on Energy holds an inquiry into coal-burning technology and recommends what technology should receive priority and the type and volume of funding that would be necessary. I have every reason to believe that the Select Committee will agree unanimously to hold such an inquiry.
As gas volumes decline and as gas finds in the North sea become rarer, market forces will push up the price of gas. Eventually, coal and nuclear will come back into their own. The market forces that will allow the nuclear industry to make a comeback in due course will, before then, give a boost to indigenous British coal. Both fuels have a future, but it is right that both fuels should determine their own future within a proper financial environment that takes account of price, markets and competition.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), given his professional background and his present responsibilities. I pause to reflect on the link between a pair of his statements. The hon. Gentleman said that he was a late convert to the view that the nuclear industry was expensive, both relatively and absolutely. He knows that my colleagues and I have advanced that argument for a long time and that one of the industry's greatest defects is that practical one, as well as the other ethical defects.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect whether he might similarly be wrong about his present absolutist view that privatisation will benefit industry. An issue that most appeared to affect his constituents in recent years was the sale of local authority homes in Rochford. The proposal that they should be moved out of local authority control met great opposition from his constituents when his Conservative colleagues on Rochford district council put it forward. I wonder whether in time the hon. Gentleman may come to realise that some of the Government's privatisation measures are not as popular or as justified as he may now think.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intention to ask the Energy Select Committee to examine the implications of coal-burn technology. Such a report will be well worth while. I also share his view that we are likely to invest far too little in flue gas desulphurisation. One consequence of the direction that the electricity industry is taking is that we may do too little about FGD, which is greatly to be regretted.
The hon. Gentleman knows that my colleagues and I have approached previous debates on this subject from the point of view that we do not oppose privatisation per se. We do not oppose the change of ownership, but question the practice of it and the motivation for it. We have consistently argued that the Government's intention to privatise the electricity industry was more for dogmatic reasons than for benefit to customer reasons—more for private good than because it was publicly bad. As we watch the advertisements on our television screens, aimed in particular at peak time viewing during the World Cup, but also at other times, we see that the Government have created a new industry in the private sector that already appears to spend money in a most unjustified way which undermines many of the Government's arguments that the industry will be more effective in the private sector.
This is an odd debate because it takes place in the knowledge that tomorrow Nuclear Electric will make an announcement about the cost of Sizewell B. I intend nonetheless to spend a few moments now on the nuclear industry in the context of the privatisation of electricity, since more important questions will have to be answered about the nuclear industry in the near future. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Energy tell the House when he winds up the debate whether the Secretary of State is to make a statement on behalf of the Government in response to Nuclear Electric's announcement tomorrow? Will he also ask his colleagues, in particular the Secretary of State, whether there is to be a formal request from his Department for a debate on the cost of Sizewell B to be held in Government time? It is a matter of significant public expenditure, on which there should be a proper debate.
We do not need to debate the matter this week; I should prefer the debate to be held after we have had an opportunity to consider the report. I welcome the announcement that the report will be made public. However, the Government should make a statement tomorrow, announcing that there will be a debate in Government time about Sizewell B and the implications for the nuclear industry.
The nuclear industry was the only matter that was allowed to interfere with the privatisation of the electricity industry. Originally, all the stations were to be privatised; then it was decided to keep the Magnox reactors in the public sector. That decision was attacked at the time by the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority as "terribly, terribly messy". When nuclear plants were withdrawn from the privatisation programme, it became possible that we might see the real cost of nuclear power. Nuclear plants were withdrawn from the privatisation proposals when it was realised that they would become a financial albatross round the neck of an industry that the Government wished to privatise.
My colleagues and I argued in Committee and at the time of the announcement that it would have been better if the Government had said, "For heaven's sake, stop now," rather than commit the mistake that Governments of both parties have made since the war, on various issues, of continuing to spend and spend instead of being brave and pulling the plug early on. Nuclear plants are essentially uneconomic, as the French are now discovering. To build one plant of one type is even worse madness, because economies of scale are lost. We know all about the delays at Dungeness. There may be costs of delay at Sizewell, too. If the figures are right, in 1987 the cost of


Sizewell B was £1,691 million. Now we could be talking about £2.5 billion. Some estimates put the cost of Sizewell B at well over £3.5 billion.
There will be additional costs. The loss of the rest of the family of four reactors which was originally proposed is calculated to add about £350 million. Although I have not read it extensively, the clear evidence of people such as the chief executive of the PWR project group of Nuclear Electric at the Hinkley inquiry was that, if the company did not proceed with building a family of PWRs, the investment in Sizewell B would become extremely doubtful.
The hon. Member for Rochford will confirm that the Select Committee has been extremely critical of the Department of Energy for allowing the cost of the nuclear industry to get out of control. There is no cross-party dispute about that. The already sharply increased costs call into question whether construction is any more justified.
Only last month the Secretary of State said two things about Sizewell B—that the future of nuclear power in Britain depended on Sizewell B being completed "successfully" and "on time". No doubt tomorrow he will respond more particularly as to whether it will be on time. He said that, so far, his understanding is that it will be. We shall see. But I wonder whether it is not already possible to say whether it will be completed successfully, and, more importantly, I wonder whether it will not be an increasing and haemorrhaging cost on the public sector which makes it economically unjustifiable by any criterion.
It almost goes without saying that if Sizewell B has failed economically, it is continuing to fail environmentally. The environmental danger and criticisms, in addition to the economic criticisms, are making Sizewell B a public sector white elephant the like of which we have not seen for a long time.
The other questions which the Government must answer concern the new structure of the area boards. They have been given the duty of keeping the lights on—a front-line responsibility but it appears that PowerGen and National Power are now negotiating with big customers behind their backs and behind the scenes. It is quite clear that the area boards are under pressure to sell as much as possible instead of encouraging energy efficiency.
One of our underlying criticisms of Government policy is that it is all geared to selling energy. Why else are we sitting at home and seeing on our television screens adverts for electricity in between World Cup matches? Why is there so much promotion of the use of something that we should be trying to conserve? If we are aiming for across-Government environmental policy, we should consider whether it is justifiable to spend so much money on advertising, in addition to the money that is being spent on other matters outlined by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
The Minister may remember that in Committee my colleagues tabled an amendment calling for least cost planning, but it was rejected. It is still perfectly proper to suggest that generators should have to show that extra demand could not be met through efficiency measures before they should be allowed to expand.
Much more recent press cuttings from only last month show that National Power has failed to satisfy a Department of Energy investigation into complaints from the distribution companies that it has engaged in unfair pricing tactics to win industrial power business. I wonder

whether the area electricity boards' complaints should not be dealt with much more properly by the Government, not simply by being investigated by the Department of Energy but by the Department saying what it proposes to do about those entirely justified complaints.
I am not sure whether the Government can yet be satisfied that National Power and PowerGen will be able to resist the threatened Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. They are at risk because, had the Government been committed to really privatising them they would not have been allowed to achieve such a dominant position. The privatisation of electricity is not a real privatisation; it is an expensive privatisation, but it is also a falsified and distorted one and no one should try to delude the public about that.
We have a substantial concern that the Government are directing energy at the expansion of one sector of the industry rather than taking measures to which they are publicly committed but on which we have seen no action.
Last year the Secretary of State told the world energy conference:
Energy efficiency is the single most cost-effective response to the efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.".
Although the Government's evidence to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that it is possible to reduce spending by 60 per cent. through cuts in fuel use, in written answers they still quote a reduction of only 20 per cent. Energy efficiency is still not a sufficiently high priority.
When one compares the money spent on research and development in the nuclear industry with that spent on renewables, the proportions are incredibly distorted. More than 80 per cent. of money spent on energy research and development is spent on the nuclear industry and less than 10 per cent. is spent on renewables. One consequence of that distortion is that we are developing inadequate use of the most environmentally acceptable energy opportunities.
The victims of the privatised electricity industry will be those who are most vulnerable and find it most difficult to pay. People who live in rural areas will lose all protection after five years and it looks as though the costs will then escalate so as to discriminate against and harm many of our most remote and threatened communities.
Finally, a large proportion of our elderly citizens rely most on electricity. They are threatened with ever-increasing electricity prices. The Minister will know that I regularly table questions reflecting the concern of many peope about the difficulties encountered by elderly people in paying for protection from cold and illness in the winter. We have to assess privatisation by its benefits or disbenefits to the consumer. It seems that a great deal of money is being spent on feather-bedding the nuclear industry which is no longer economic and giving big profits to the private sector in a distorted free market without any great benefit to the consumer. It is an enormously wasted opportunity.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) because I suspect that he may agree with much of what I have to say.
Although I welcome the debate, I am rather surprised that the Opposition seem too eager to shoot themselves in the foot yet again. I declare an interest as an energy


consultant. Those of us who are aware of what is happening in the real world can report two particularly exciting developments in recent weeks. Even during the transitional period when the electricity industry has not yet been privatised, these two major events are evolving before our eyes—at least for those of us who wish to see.
First, real competition has broken out and is resulting in lower-price contracts for those who need them most—the large energy users. For too many years, our industries have been penalised with far too high electricity prices compared with our competitors abroad. Competition is working. Lower-price contracts are being signed and all the fears that were expressed by Opposition Members, industry and the CBI only a few months ago have disappeared. We are not hearing a word about the suggestion that energy prices to large users would rise; on the contrary, the silence is deafening. Some of us know that the first contracts in the competitive market have resulted in lower energy prices for heavy energy users, who will benefit most and whose lower energy costs will benefit the British economy most.
The second exciting development is that, for the first time, our electricity industry has suddenly become aware of the new technologies that are available, which produce electricity not only more cheaply but more cleanly and more efficiently, with less environmental destruction.
Those are two most significant changes. I am disappointed that the Labour party still appears to be stuck in a socialist rut with the dogma of nationalisation, whereas the contrast is already emerging. Instead of trying to pretend that it is not happening, Labour Members should have the courage to admit that the state monopoly of electricity led to the high-cost nuclear option. They tried to hide that high cost and only privatisation brought it to the surface. The state monopoly of electricity led to wasteful planning, the mismanagement of national assets and dirty, inefficient coal burn. Flue gas desulphurisation was fitted not by the nationalised CEGB but because of privatisation. It may not be enough for Labour Members, but it is happening now, whereas it did not happen before.
The national electricity monopoly rejected energy efficiency options such as combined heat and power. It rejected the combined cycle and the gas turbine, which at least would have given diversity of supply, cleaner energy production and lower-cost electricity. It rejected the fluidised bed, which would allow us to burn British coal cleanly. The private sector, preparing for privatisation, and the distribution companies such as East Midlands Electricity are proposing to build smaller coal-fired power stations, which will burn coal more cleanly and efficiently.
The nationalised industry was not interested in that. It did not start promoting renewable energy such as wind power. That is now happening thanks to the Government's renewable energy tranche, to which they are giving special encouragement, and partly thanks to the distribution companies and the producers, PowerGen and National Power, which are interested in investing in and promoting renewable energy. It certainly did not happen before.
The nationalised industry did not lead to lower and more competitive prices to British industry, but prices are lower now. It certainly did not do much to provide

consumer protection. That is the contrast. We are now beginning to see the increased application of energy efficiency in the production of electricity.
I return to the important contribution that cogeneration, combined heat and power, can make. The nationalised CEGB rejected that option. In a few days' time, I shall visit yet another of the new combined heat and power installations at Heathrow airport. It is saving a huge amount of energy for the BAA and is therefore helping the environment. That installation will have a good rate of return. I have visited other industrial combined heat and power installations, as has my hon. Friend the Minister, at British Sugar and Tunnel Refineries. There has been a surge in interest in co-generation in industry. Every day, one reads in the technical press announcements of new plants being constructed by industry, which will save energy, reduce fuel costs and save the environment. If he has not already done so, my hon. Friend the Minister should visit Trust House Forte, which is installing small combined heat and power plants at its motorway service stations and hotels. It is getting a three-year pay back on its investment and halving the amount of fuel consumed. That is all happening under privatisation; it certainly did not happen before.
The increased use of municipal waste in energy production will improve energy efficiency and reduce environmental pollution. The House may be aware that we are still bottom of the league for turning waste into useful energy. We still dump our waste in holes, pollute the water supply and create the risk of pollution and danger from methane explosions instead of doing what other European countries have done for many years—using municipal refuse as a valuable and cheap fuel. We convert only 3 per cent. of our huge volume of industrial and municipal waste into useful energy. France converts 25 per cent. and Denmark, the Netherlands and West Germany convert 30 per cent. at clean incineration plants, which produce electricity and hot water for district heating. In Sweden, the figure is 40 per cent. The figure in Britain is still 3 per cent., but projects are coming forward, thanks to privatisation and to the Government making refuse a renewable energy source. Those projects will produce useful energy such as electricity and hot water from refuse instead of polluting the environment with it.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister—I am sure that he is aware of this—that converting refuse into energy is the only technology that produces a net reduction in global greenhouse gases. Although burning refuse produces carbon dioxide, it also burns the methane—a far more damaging greenhouse gas—that would otherwise be released from landfill for the next 20 or 30 years. Even if the methane from landfill is tapped for energy production, as it is on some sites, only 10 per cent. of it can be used. The remainder goes into the atmosphere, and it is a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. If that refuse is burnt, other fossil fuels are displaced that would otherwise have to be burnt to create that electricity.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's view about the environmental importance of burning refuse to create energy, but does he accept that one of the problems is that we have not converted the public to the view that that process is not environmentally harmful? Work must be done to win the argument so that we can change the balance of resource use.

Mr. Rost: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention, because it helps me to make my next point. My colleagues in the Department of Energy and the Department of the Environment have an important role to play. A helpful new clause in the Environmental Protection Bill obliges local authorities to find sensible ways of disposing of their refuse, rather than dumping it in holes, and to promote waste recycling. I hope that we shall ensure that that happens. I look forward to seeing progress in that important direction.
I have referred to the way in which more efficient energy production is taking over. Of course, we can meet our global greenhouse targets by the year 2005, and freeze the amount of emissions that will be released, but we can do much more. We can bring about a net reduction of global greenhouse gases by encouraging greater efficiency of use and of energy production. By increasing thermal efficiency in the way in which fuel is used in our power stations, we can make a much bigger contribution than in any other way to reducing global greenhouse gases. To meet, as we must, the targets that the world will demand—they are stricter than the targets so far announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—we shall have to do more than just encourage energy efficiency. We shall have to encourage greater improvements in the efficiency with which we convert energy.
The fact that this is not a costly option does not seem to have got across to many people. Blood, sweat and tears are not involved. It will not be a penalising technology. On the contrary, as I said, industries are to have a pay-back period of two or three years. Energy savings of 25 to 30 per cent. a year will result from combined heat and power. It will reduce our national energy bill, thereby improving competitiveness and productivity. Rather than being a costly option, it will result in savings.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy will accept that, although industrial co-generation is cost-effective and taking off, the big contribution can come only when there is more city combined heat and power and when the waste heat from power stations is used to displace the fossil fuels that we now burn to provide space heating. City combined heat and power is marginally economic at present, but it needs a stronger market signal. I hope that progress will be made—we have started in Sheffield—to get more core city schemes going. They will be a major contribution to energy savings and to reducing global greenhouse gases. If that can happen in many towns and cities in Europe, it is time that we got on with it. In due course, it must happen.
I should like my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy to give an annual tranche of expenditure to city combined heat and power, just as they do for renewable energy, and to get one or two cities a year to apply that system. By accepting that combined heat and power will displace the fossil fuels that would otherwise have to be burnt, thereby creating pollution, and giving that tranche, we shall give a slightly stronger marketing signal to the consortiums of local authorities, private enterprise and distribution companies—such as those in Leicester—which are keen to proceed.
The Government have taken a major initiative in giving renewable energy an opportunity to get into the marketplace, even though it is not competitive when compared with gas and other fossil fuels. The Government believe that it is important to have diversity of supply and that that initiative will result in less pollution because

carbon dioxide will not be released. The 300-odd projects about which information has flooded into the Department of Energy, overwhelming my right hon. and hon. Friends—I do not think that they expected such an enormous response—show the potential for the production of 2,000 to 3,000 MW in the next few years. They should be allowed to go ahead, provided that they can produce cheaper electricity than nuclear power.
It would be difficult for the Government to justify rejecting projects involving renewable energy sources if they offered cheaper electricity than nuclear electricity. Nuclear energy has been given a special, continuing role on environmental and diversification grounds. The same should apply to renewables.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Energy will plead with the other European Energy Ministers and the European Commission to ensure that an eight-year cut-off point does not apply to subsidising non-fossil fuels. That cut-off point is intended to stop us subsidising the nuclear industry for more than eight years, but the baby has been thrown out with the bath-water, because renewable energy projects have been undermined.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take a tough line in Europe and persuade our colleagues that it is not in the long-term interests of a global energy strategy to discourage renewable energy production. There should be a European policy that allows each member state to develop a tranche of renewables, which could be subsidised if we wished, in the interests of environmental protection and diversity of supply. That would be exempt from the 1992 competitive rules, which are the reasons why the Commission allowed us to subsidise renewable energy only over an eight-year cycle.

Mr. George T. Buckley: The hon. Gentleman praised market forces in the privatisation of electricity, but he now suggests that renewable energy should be given a subsidy. I wish that the Government would make up their mind whether they believe that the operation of market forces will result in cheaper electricity. The hon. Gentleman said that the contracts that are being negotiated for major consumers prove the benefits of privatisation. Will he assure the House that the domestic consumer will also look forward to a substantial price reduction?

Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. I shall concentrate on the first because that is what I have been talking about. I have not suggested for renewables anything new that has not already been agreed, promoted or proposed by the Government. The Government have provided for a tranche for renewable electricity, which obviously will need to be subsidised, just as with nuclear power and the coal industry. I have not suggested anything that will extend that subsidy. I have merely suggested that, if we give a subsidy to encourage renewables, we should ensure that it goes ahead. If the European Commission imposes an eight-year limit on such subsidies, there will he many projects that will not be bankable for private sector investors.
The European Community should make it a part of its energy policy to do what the British Government have done. It should allow a small proportion of every member state's electricity generation to come from renewables. If member states wish to promote renewables through a form


of subsidy, they should be allowed to do so. I am not suggesting anything new; I merely propose an extension of what the Government are already doing.
Of course I accept that we want a competitive market in electricity, but we also want to save the environment, and that aim must be an equally important part of our energy strategy. If global warming becomes a serious threat, as scientists are now beginning to argue it will, we may have to do many things, some of which will be far more costly than providing limited support for a marginal amount of electricity generated by wave, wind and tidal sources. I believe that the cost of renewable energy will fall as the technology develops and that it will become competitive. I wholeheartedly support the strategy which, as a result of electricity privatisation, is now going ahead. For that reason alone—leaving aside the other reasons that I have mentioned, such as the promotion of greater energy efficiency—the Government's privatisation of the elec-tricity industry will be seen as one of the most important policy measures that they have introduced in their 12 years in office.

6 pm

Mr. John McAllion: The speech of the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) improved as it went along, and given the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, there was no alternative to such an improvement. If the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the superiority of a privatised industry over a planned approach to energy policy proved anything, it was that it is the hon. Gentleman who does not know what is going on in the real world. He made accusations about the mismanagement of national assets, and laid that at the door of socialism and the nationalised industry; in fact, it is a key characteristic of the Government's madcap privatisation schemes, as we have seen from the electricity privatisation proposals.
I shall concentrate on the consequences of privatisation for Scotland, and particularly for the Scottish coal industry. Given the Government's original intention to privatise nuclear capacity, and as 60 per cent. of Scotland's electricity is nuclear-generated, the future for the Scottish coal industry under private ownership originally appeared bleak. There were so many cheaper alternatives to which the private sector could turn.
There was the nuclear industry itself, which had been subsidised by the Government and the taxpayer for the previous four decades and which the private sector clearly expected to continue to be subsidised on into a privatised future. There was gas-fired generation. There were plentiful supplies of gas from the North sea and elsewhere and the new combined cycle gas turbine plants offered an alternative to coall generation that was not only cheaper but environmentally sound. Then there were the imports of cheap low-sulphur coal from South Africa, Venezuela and Colombia.
In addition, in the private sector's view there were so many problems associated with coal. There were the carbon dioxide and sulphur emissions created by coal generation, and a European directive had set national targets for reductions in such emissions. Expensive technologies were required to clean up coal generation. We are not talking just about flue gas desulphurisation, which, in any case, applies mainly to pits and plants outside

Scotland. We are talking about fluidised bed combustion technology, which, if it was applied to the refurbishment of the Kincardine power station, would help to secure the future of the Monktonhall and Frances collieries, at present mothballed by British Coal.
It is against the background of the investment needs of the coal industry and of the cheaper alternatives available to the private sector that the key attitudes to the coal industry have been struck in recent years. It is against that background, too, that the Scottish industry has all but been betrayed by the Government in their privatisation policies.
A report issued by George Kerovan and Richard Saville at the time of the last general election warned that, if the privatisation of the electricity industry went ahead, all the mines in Scotland, with the exception of Longannet, would be closed down and that the number of miners in Scotland would be reduced to 2,000 or less. At the time of its publication, Ministers dismissed the report as scaremongering and criticised its authors as left-wingers who could not be trusted and who were in any case likely to criticise the Government's privatisation policies. Three years on, the authors have been proved exactly right: Longannet is now the only deep-mined pit surviving in Scotland and there are now fewer than 2,000 miners in my country. The authors have been proved right partly because of the drive toward privatisation by the Government and the electricity industry.
Like many others, I welcome the recent news that Scottish Power has at last made a five-year deal with British Coal that helps to secure the future of the Longannet complex. But I ask the House to examine the timing of that agreement. It came not before but after the decision to pull nuclear plants out of the privatisation. The question has to be asked: would a privatised Scottish Power that still owned Torness and Hunterston B have struck such a deal with British Coal? If Scottish Power had continued to own a massive generating capacity provided by those nuclear stations, would it still have felt it necessary to enter into new agreements with British Coal? I fear that the answer to those questions is no. So long as Scottish Power enjoyed a nuclear alternative, it did not need Scottish coal and, as a private operator, what it did not need it was not prepared to pay for.
Only when Scottish Power was brought face to face with the reality that nuclear generation was uneconomic and could not be privatised, and only when it had to face a future in the free market without Torness and Hunterston B, did it rediscover the value of coal in generating electricity. That explains the five years deal on Longannet struck between British Coal and Scottish Power. It also explains Scottish Power's new willingness to negotiate on the Cockenzie power station, with the possibility of reopening Monktonhall. It is as simple as that. Scottish Power's private need to secure new sources of generation after the nuclear alternative was taken away from it explains the different attitude that it has now brought to its negotiations with British Coal.
What was in the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people or of the United Kingdom as a whole never entered into the equation, which was dominated by the private interests of Scottish Power. That explains Scottish Power's different attitude before and after the nuclear capacity was removed from the privatisation process. That has been the greatest price to be paid for the privatisation of the electricity industry—the loss of any consideration of what


is in the strategic interests of the country as a whole. It used to be called planning, which the Secretary of State told us today belongs to the past.
Private interests have come to predominate. That is why the tremendous potential of the Scottish coalfield has been sadly neglected by a Government bent on privatising and by an industry intent upon lining its own pockets and those of its shareholders. Make no mistake about it: a priceless national asset has been neglected in the privatisation process. The Scottish coalfield has massive resources. In the Musselburgh basin alone, we have workings capable of sustaining 100 years worth of production. Monktonhall could work for 20 years from its current workings. With the appropriate development, both Monktonhall and Frances at Dysart have another 50 years worth of workable coal. Those pits, along with large unexploited coal stocks at Harpendon in Lanarkshire and at Canonbie in Dumfriesshire represent a tremendous national resource which ought to be exploited economically in the national interest—all the more so because Scottish coal is green, environmentally friendly coal with a very low sulphur content. So why is it not being exploited? Why is it being wantonly neglected by the Government and the industry?
The pathetic excuses for the failure to use Scottish coal simply cannot be sustained. We were told that it would cost too much to transport coal from Frances colliery in Fife to elsewhere on the United Kingdom mainland. Yet, in the same breath, the Government tell us that it is not too expensive to transport similar coal from other continents on the other side of the world. We are expected to believe that moving coal more than 3,000 miles is economically more efficient than moving it 300 miles. No one in their right senses would believe such a preposterous proposition. However, that is the present position because of the Government's plan to privatise the electricity industry. The hon. Member for Erewash referred to the waste of national assets, but Scotland's national assets are being wasted as a direct result of the Government's free-market privatisation policy.
One of the great ironies of the whole business of privatisation had been the stark contrast between the Government's attitude in 1984 and their attitude today. In 1984, the iron law of the market was rigidly applied to the coal industry. Uneconomic pits which could not show short-term profitability had to go. The Government came close to waging a civil war with the National Union of Mineworkers to drive that lesson home—and drive it home with a vengeance they did. More than 100 pits were closed, and more than 100,000 miners have gone to the wall. Yet just five years later, the Government have run away from applying the same iron market laws to their beloved nuclear industry.
Nuclear power stations are uneconomic, and they are not profitable. The private sector would not touch them with a bargepole, as everyone is aware. Are those nuclear power stations to close? Is that industry to be decimated? No. Those stations are to be withdrawn from the privatisation process and they are to be propped up, like the economic lame ducks they are, within the public sector.
We can only marvel at a Government who happily write off £1,400 million of debt which nuclear power had cast around the neck of the electricity industry in Scotland, but who baulk at a fraction of that investment in new clean coal technologies that would secure the future of economic exploitation of the massive strategic reserves of Scottish

coal. That behaviour is beyond rational explanation, but increasingly the same accusation can be levelled against a range of Government policy. Because of that, the people of Scotland, England and Wales are turning away from the Government and their wasteful polices. The people are turning towards the Labour party—the party which will put the national interests before private interests and the party which will win the next general election.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will forgive me if I do not refer to Scotland as he did. I want to begin by referring to the Social and Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has disappeared from the Chamber, together with his colleagues. There is not one SLD Member present in the Chamber now. However, I am afraid that that will not stop me saying a few words about the SLD and its policies.
It is one of the SLD's more endearing characteristics that that party shows a degree of muddle and confusion. If ever one day the SLD showed itself to be sharp and incisive, we would all wonder what on earth had gone wrong.
Opposition to the Government's proposals on privatisation was expressed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) when he was SLD energy spokesman. In a press statement on 25 February 1988, he claimed, among other things, that privatisation of electricity would be
a repeat performance of British Telecom and British Gas in that there will be no protection for the consumer … and the only result of privatisation so far has been an increase in electricity prices … The Government has yet to convince that privatisation on these terms will benefit anyone but the get-rich-quick privateers.
Those views are in sharp contrast to those of his successor as energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In an article entitled "Why I'm buying electricity shares", which appeard in Liberal News, the hon. Member for Gordon wrote:
It is impossible to defend the status quo in the electricity industry. The Central Electricity Generating Board has become a centralised monopoly which is closed, secretive and accountable to no one. The economics of generation and conservation are neither being properly examined or subjuted to market forces.
The hon. Member for Gordon said that on 7 October
1987.
However—this is yet another element of muddle—the SLD green paper "Privatising Electricity", which appeared in August 1988, states openly:
Social and Liberal Democrats oppose the Government's privatisation plans for the electricity supply industry because they are irrelevant to the problems facing the industry … because they will not lead to any significant degree of competition.
As I have said, it is one of the SLD's more endearing characteristics that its members are muddled, and I am only sorry that there is not one SLD Member present to add to that muddle and confusion now.
I want now to consider the Central Electricity Generating Board. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were to ask the ordinary man or woman in the street what the CEGB was, most of them would not have a clue. They would probably think that it was a foreign football team. However, the CEGB, which was of course one of the most important bodies in this country, displayed poor accountability and a lack of market discipline and was also


susceptible to Government interference. It led to enormous over-capacity, as a result of which British consumers have been paying for years for mothballed power stations.
Under privatisation, there will be greater democracy and greater accountability, particularly through the Secretary of State and the director general's office. It might also be worth-while to consider the attitude of some of the trade unions. I beleve that in today's Times Mr. John Lyons states that he wanted 10 per cent. of the shares in the industry to be allocated for his members on favourable terms. That shows that Mr. Lyons is very wise. Similarly, Mr. Eric Hammond said:
There is scepticism, to say the least, among our members about the moral and practical effects of nationalisation that is ignored by our composites … Our members reveal an enthusiasm for the market system and its values that infuriate the sherry party revolutionaries with their model resolutions and conference hall rhetoric.
Those are wise words once again.
When the electricity industry was a nationalised industry, there were difficulties in planning before and after 1974. Reference has already been made to the nuclear industry. In the mid-1960s, a Labour Government commissioned different types of advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations. As a result, those power stations have had many difficulties. As has already been said, 20 years on, one of those stations is running at about 1.1 per cent capacity. That is a poor record.
I want now to consider the concept of business and profit alongside service. The other day I had the misfortune to catch my foot in my telephone cord, which caused the telephone to fall to the floor and burst open. I rang British Telecom and a man came round the next day. I must say that that was very efficient. He put my telephone right in no time. He told me that British Telecom operates as a business today, not as a service.
I thought that that was significant because, apart from anything else, I had to pay for that service. I did not mind doing so, because I had been careless enough to break the telephone and it was right and proper that I should pay to have it mended. However, I can remember that, before the industry was nationalised, if I had done the same thing, it would have taken three weeks for an engineer to appear. It would have been little consolation for me to discover that I would not have been charged directly, but that the charge would have been added to everyone's bill.
I am afraid that time is fast running out, but I want to refer briefly to pollution and the environment. We have heard about alternative sources of energy and about wind farms, tidal barrages and the generation of hydro-electricity. However, all those have their own costs in terms of the environment.
A wind farm is incredibly noisy. No one can live within miles of one. Once the wind speed rises above 30 or 35 mph, the windmills must be stopped to prevent the vanes from blowing off. A barrage across the Severn estuary would have an appalling effect on the wildlife in the estuary and the life forms that depend on the tide going up and down. The Scottish people know the environmental cost of installing hydro-electricity. The River Garry in Perthshire is now almost permanently dry because its water was taken years ago for hydro-electric schemes.
The latest technology—combined cycle gas turbines—is far more efficient than coal-fired power stations. Instead of requiring the hundreds of acres that are needed for the latter, they require only about 15 acres, and have a far shorter lead time. There is no doubt that that is the way forward. If the technology had been adopted some years ago, we would not now be wrestling with all the problems of FGD, which is immensely costly: £700 million is to be spent on the Drax power station.
Nearly 50 per cent. of Sweden's electricity is generated through nuclear schemes. Sweden is now in serious trouble, because the people have recently said that they do not want nuclear power any more, and that it must be phased out by 2005. The Swedish authorities are at their wits' end to know how to produce that amount of electricity without using nuclear power.
There is no doubt that the privatisation of the electricity industry will bring great benefits to consumers and the British public. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Labour party's motion.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Unlike the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson)—I am sure that he will forgive me—I wish to refer to the texts before the House, and especially to the Government amendment. The amendment refers to
internationally recognised benefits … rights for the consumer … the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment".
Although "internationally recognised benefits" will accrue, they will not benefit the people of Britain, who will see an asset being sold off for far less than it is worth to help an appalling balance-of-payments problem. Government policy—and certainly electricity privatization—make no contribution to resolving that problem. As for the reference to "rights for the consumer", the Minister cannot deny that consumers are already paying 20 per cent. more for electricity as a result of the Government's privatisation policy than they would otherwise have paid: Opposition Members made that clear in our last debate on this subject.
The Government say that they are committed to the environment. I have long been committed to the environment, and I could spend a long time listing the Government's abject and appalling environmental failures. Sites of special scientific interest have been damaged, international conventions have been ignored and, a mile from my home, an enormous quantity of toxic waste—which should never have come into this country—has been dumped. It has been there for over a year. If the Government allow such poisons to enter the country, they are not fit to be in charge of the environment, and it is a disgrace for them to refer to it.
I detect the stench of corruption to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. I do not need to spell out the details, but let me describe a debate in Budapest in which I took part three weeks ago. It took place in the Hungarian Parliament, and was attended by Prime Ministers and Finance Ministers from eastern Europe. They were educated by the assorted bodies of the European right.
There was a substantial delegation of Conservative Members, who presented a paper advocating privatisation in eastern Europe. To support their argument, they produced a list of all the privatisations that had taken


place in Britain since the Prime Minister took office, in chronological order. At the side, in the same order, was a list of the net proceeds that the Government had received.
I examined the list with great interest. It is not a list that Conservative Members would like to see published in the Official Report; it showed, for example, that the net receipts from the sale of the royal ordnance factories was about one tenth of the amount involved in the land fiddles that followed that privatisation, and that the net proceeds from the sale of British Gas amounted to £1.74 billion. That—as my hon. Friends who served on the Committee examining the Gas Bill will recall—is about 10 per cent. of the worth of the industry before it was privatised. When public assets are sold for one tenth of their actual worth, the stench of corruption is strong.

Mr. Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hardy: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman made an appallingly long speech: he spoke for half an hour, although many other hon. Members wanted to make important contributions. To the best of my knowledge, he has already made that speech three times.

Mr. Rost: For the record, my speech may have been appalling and long, but it did not go on for half an hour: it was 21 minutes.

Mr. Hardy: It seemed like half an hour.
Ministers are carrying out their normal task and saying that we do not need to bother about asset value or what anything is worth, but should merely sell for what we can get in a market where Britain is increasingly less valued. The countries that may provide the purchases know that we have a balance of payments deficit of appalling proportions, and that beggars cannot be choosers. The Government have brought Britain to beggary, and the privatisation of the electricity industry is one example of that.
At the debate in Budapest, I made sure that the assembled gathering was made aware—although I do not like to criticise Britain abroad, and do not do it often—that assets had been disposed of at knockdown value. I also provided a response to the choruses of demands and advice that had been forthcoming from Conservative Members who told eastern Europe: "Dismantle your controls, get rid of regulations, leave your economies to the market force and let our entrepreneurs come and help you."
I suggest that eastern Europeans would be well advised to resist the greedy, salivating entrepreneurs who want their snouts in everyone's gravy trough. I advised them to bear in mind that in any civilised country there must be regulation to protect the community, the consumer, the worker and the environment. The Conservative Members who advised people in Budapest to sell of their assets cheaply and to scrap all their rules would not say that on the hustings in Britain. However, what they said in Budapest they believed, and that belief smells of corruption.
Conservative Members have echoed the cheers in support of the dismantling of a large part of the British coal industry. In my area, there is a blight: hundreds of acres of land have been rendered derelict as a result of the pursuit of greed. Yet, despite the economic blows that the Government have inflicted on that area—despite the ravaging of public sector assets—we are now told by this

corrupt Government that my area is one of the least deprived, most fortunate and well-furnished, in a civic sense, and least necessitous areas of Britain.
Coalfield areas that have been robbed blind by the Government are now seeing their prospects being further reduced by this sort of dogmatic privatisation. At the same time, Departments of State are saying that our areas need less help than others. Let us think about those other areas. They include Purpeck, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire and parts of the most salubrious areas of outer London, such as Royal Tunbridge Wells and Richmond on Thames. All those areas are now regarded as deprived.
When the shares are sold at knockdown prices, they will not be bought by people in areas such as mine, because they cannot afford them; they will be bought by people in areas that the Government are assisting. That is why we are entitled to say that there is a stench of corruption. That is also why I hope that my hon. Friends will ensure that we maintain our opposition to the Government's disgraceful policy.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Prime Minister, in her third term of office, has at last started to take some interest in environmental matters. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy, which perhaps has the most to contribute to environmental protection, is preoccupied with this privatisation rather than devoting its time to what it could contribute to protect the environment.
We know that acid rain is a major problem for industrialised countries throughout Europe. Despite being in office for more than a decade, the Government have so far achieved nothing in tackling the problem. Britain is by far the largest producer of sulphur dioxide in Europe. We were about the last to reach an agreement with our European partners on progressive cuts of 20 per cent., 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. by the year 2003. We are way behind other countries in terms of doing something. West Germany has already fitted flue gas desulphurisation units to 40,000 MW of generating capacity—that is, 116 separate units—yet, when the Government leave office, not one of our power stations will have been desulphurised. That speaks volumes for the Government's and the Prime Minister's commitment to the environment.
On global warming, the Prime Minister made a major speech to the Meteorological Office on 25 May and impressively recognised that a major problem confronts the planet. Higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere pose the threat that sea levels will rise and, much more important, climatic change across the globe. Having accepted that there is a major problem, the Government's policy is simply stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels by 2003. That implies that, if the Government were returned to office, they would allow carbon dioxide levels to continue to rise—business as usual—and would then leave it to a successor Government towards the end of the century or early next century to try to effect those difficult cuts.
West Germany has a target of 25 per cent. cuts by 2005. The Labour party is committed to stabilisation by the year 2000, which is the policy for most of the European Community. With the privatisation measure, there was an opportunity to do something constructive and substantial


to tackle problems such as global warming. The answers lie in energy efficiency and in the development of renewable sources of energy. However, we know the record of the Energy Efficiency Office and the cuts in its budget. When the privatisation measure was considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many amendments were tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by Labour Members, but the Government voted them all down. A major amendment on energy efficiency and the idea of least cost planning was tabled in the other House, but it was voted down.
It is clear that, rather than invest £2 billion, or whatever is the figure now, for Sizewell nuclear power station, a much better use of the nation's resources would be to put that £2 billion towards improving home insulation, district heating schemes and so on. Investment in energy efficiency creates jobs and makes the economy more efficient. Last week, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made some powerful remarks to that effect. If we invested to save energy use, the whole economy would be more productive and competitive. Energy would be saved and goods would be cheaper. That is the Japanese record, and it is self-evident common sense.
The other way of tackling global warming, which is one of the most intractable environmental problems—by stabilisation of carbon dioxide levels—is not enough. We need drastic cuts during the next century. If drastic cuts are ever to be possible, we must develop renewable sources of energy. According to what I hear from organisations and from what I read in the newspapers, far from encouraging renewable sources of energy, this privatisation measure is faulty.
As the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) mentioned, when the Department of Energy asked for projects to take the renewable tranche within the privatisation, it was embarrassed by the hundreds of replies that it received. Having got 600 or so projects lined up, it moved the goal posts and changed the 15-year payback to an eight-year payback. If we want renewable sources to make the major contribution that they could to our energy supplies in the next century, we must invest in the same way as we are willing to invest in nuclear power.
The only good thing that has come out of the privatisation measure is the fact that it has introduced transparency to nuclear costs. When people in the City started to examine the costs of decommissioning and the costs of treating nuclear waste and possibly disposing of it, they were horrified. I am relieved and pleased that that aspect has been taken out of the privatisation measure. A 20 per cent. cost escalation at the Sizewell nuclear power station during the past two years has been mentioned. There is no question but that that power station, along with the other three, should be scrapped now.
Hon. Members have heard several contributions about economics and cost of the privatisation—selling £20 billion or £30 billion of assets at knockdown prices. The consumer will have to pay for that. It is my strong belief that the consumer cannot afford this privatisation. Because of imports implications, the country cannot afford it either, and nor can the environment.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In the light of the limited time available, I must dispense with some of the customary niceties in sweeping up at the end of the debate and get straight into the remarks that are necessary for Opposition Members to explain what we find so unsatisfactory about the Government's privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
This privatisation is different from other privatisations in that the industry is being dismantled and reassembled at the same time as it is being privatised. That poses entirely new problems for those guiding the industry not just into the private sector, as on 1 April, but on to the stock exchange and being sold off somehow or other over the next 12 months or two years.
Usually, when selling a company on the stock exchange, five years of audited accounts must be produced as a guide for anyone buying shares. What animal are they buying? Is it fish, fowl, chalk, cheese or whatever? Buyers will not have the benefit of that procedure with this flotation. Anyone wishing to buy shares in an area distribution company will find that it is not the same as the distribution board that existed until 31 March. It is without some of its previous operations, but it has many others. It has the power to generate, but it does not have a monopoly over distribution. When a new housing estate is built in the area, a generating company—or any Tom, Dick or Harry—could bid to put in the wires. There is no automatic monopoly; the company has lost that guaranteed income.
Similarly, when buying a share in a generating company, that will not be the same as simply buying the 70 per cent. coal-fired and oil-fired generating sets that belong to the Central Electricity Generating Board, because the electricity distribution companies can operate in generating and the generating companies can operate in distribution. It is a complete mish-mash of an industry.
Conservative Members may say, "That's fine; that is what we want. We want a mish-mash. We want distributors to be able to generate and generators to be able to distribute. We want distributors to be able to pinch business from each other in the borders or, for example, the North of Scotland Hydro Board to take contracts in south Wales, and so on." That is exactly what they want. What does that mean for the small shareholder who might be inveigled into buying shares? Stockbrokers can no longer say, "Here are the audited accounts for the previous five years. It appears that there will be a gently rising path into the future, which means that we can expect so much capital growth and so much dividend income." Now a new company, of a new kind, is being floated. What sort of protection will be offered to the small shareholder?
The Government could say, "Well, that does not really matter, because we are converting the company not merely into shares but into a sort of granny-bond operation. Whatever the results this year, we can project forward through the inclusion of the retail price index plus x minus y formula." Apart from the fact that that builds inflation into the formula, it is no real protection for the small shareholder because he cannot find any independent advice about new shares that he wants to buy.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a large number of people in my constituency work in this most important industry.
apologise for not having been present for the whole of the debate; I have been in my constituency. Is he aware that the main question asked by people in the industry in my constituency is when will they get their shares? They have complete confidence in the industry and in the privatisation.

Mr. Morgan: The trouble is that that assumes that the shares will be given away at a very low price by writing off two thirds of their book value—and if that can happen once, it can happen again. Where will they get advice on what is the proper and fair arbitration of the current value of the shares as they belong to the taxpayer, and the appropriate value for selling them to the private shareholder? Who will provide that?
A recent heavyweight article in The Times Business News stated:
A few weeks back, a highly-placed executive at one of the country's 12 electricity distribution companies was threatened with court action by the Department of Energy.
His alleged crime was giving an honest review of the prospects for his business, a breach, in the department's eyes, of the Financial Services Act … Nothing better reflects the paranoia and uncertainty surrounding electricity privatisation …
It was a feature of the water floatation that the FSA was used as an extension of the Official Secrets Act, to plug unwanted—as opposed to Whitehall-sanctioned—leaks.
The problem with this privatisation—it is worse than with any previous privatization—is that we cannot put a proper value on the industry unless we allow independent comment. The Government are putting a blanket ban on any independent comments that could help small shareholders to decide what is the right price and whether they want to go into the industry as investors.
As far as I am aware, the Government have not yet decided whether to sell any shares in the generating companies to the Sids. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who has joined the debate at the last minute, has views on that which she may want to make to the Secretary of State. I understand that it might be done by replacement or by tender. The Secretary of State may have views on that which he could express to the House tonight—it is a suitable opportunity—because it is very important to the way that public expenditure on this industry is being thrown around.
We have heard several times tonight about the way in which the generating companies are presenting themselves as the wonderful folks who bring us the world cup and the weather forecast. The world cup sponsorship slots are not just advertisements, they are included in the commentator's references. He might say, "This game is brought to you by National Power," as though the world cup would not be on television were it not for electricity privatisation. Bob Phillips, a sports commentator on my local newspaper in Cardiff, said that it was the most unwanted electricity plug of all time, and I agree.
The blurring of the distinction between what is sponsorship and what is advertising is absolutely appalling. It is part of the drift into sleaze to which we have referred several times. It is impossible to obtain a contract in anything to do with privatisation unless Tim Bell is one's public relations adviser—

Mr. Barry Jones: Ireland beat Romania 5:4 on penalties.

Mr. Morgan: I am glad to hear that.
I am anxious that we should know just how much money is being spent on advertising. It appears that, this year alone, the corporate advertising of National Power, PowerGen, the 12 area distribution companies and the Government in presenting the companies for sale will be well above £50 million. That is creating a whole new class of privatisation junkies—advertising agencies that cannot do without the full-page advertising and newspapers which, in the downturn in commercial advertising, cannot really afford to keep on their journalists unless they take privatisation advertising.
The stockbrokers and merchant bankers—the Kleinwort Bensons, the Warburgs, the Capels and the Cazenoves—are now completely dependent on privatisation proceeds to keep them going during a period of slack business in the stock market and in merchant banking.
What we now need to know is the real purpose and the real priority of privatisation of the electricity supply industry. Will it meet the priorities of the industry? Will it convert the industry into the shape that it should be so that it can answer the real problems that it will face over the next 10 or 12 years—as perceived by Conservative Members, let alone by Labour Members? Will the electricity industry's top priority be competition?
Some Conservative Members probably think that everything should be subject to competition—even, as we heard last week, the very currencies in which we deal. They believe that hard and soft currencies should be the subject of competition when one buys groceries or uses a travel agent. We believe that there are more important priorities in the energy industry—and when it comes to attending international conferences, even the Prime Minister thinks that there are more important priorities than merely competition.
I know that the Prime Minister suffers from her own version of BSE—Boadicea syndrome encephalopathy. She likes to grab hold of the nearest chariot wheels in the conference game. If there is a conference, especially in this country where she can organise it and make sure that she has a starring role, she is in there, fighting for a leading role. She is one of those recognisable types of person who boss their way into being secretary of the best-kept-planetin-the-galaxy committee. When it comes to global warming, yes, the Prime Minister wants to be there, as long as everybody does what she says. If everybody did what she says, not what she does, we might have a healthier environment for our planet, but we certainly will not have that if we follow what she does.
The Prime Minister has refused to put conservation at the top of the energy industry's agenda, while talking up her role as the person who can solve global warming and acid rain. Having seen that wonderful headline in the Evening Standard,
Maggie's plan to save the world",
the Prime Minister cut the acid rain reduction programme from 12,000 MW to 8,000 MW. However, the Evening Standard did not run a headline stating, "Maggie's plan to save two thirds of the world", although it should have.
With all the advertising and the creation of an entirely new class of privatisation junkie, now is the time for the Government to giving serious thought to the real needs of the next 10 years. Is it rational to plan our use of energy and the way in which we sell energy, with a view to the global environment, or is it simply a question of selling off our energy industry to create a new class of small shareholder?
If global warming turns out to be a big problem, and if in 10 years' time the Secretary of State's successor is sitting on the Terrace with the successor to Sir Humphrey as the Thames water from the rising sea level comes over the parapet on to the Terrace, we do not want the Secretary of State to say to Sir Humphrey, "Well, global warming is here to stay; what is our policy response?", and Sir Humphrey to reply, "I suppose that we could always try breast stroke."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. It has enabled the Government, once again, to set out the success of our privatisation proposals. We have heard interesting speeches from hon. Members of all parties, all of whom take a close interest in energy policy. In the eight minutes left to me, I shall try to respond to some of their points.
The first point that the Opposition sought to make was about the price of the privatisation. I wish to make it clear that, via the supplementary estimates, the Government have obtained parliamentary approval for the preliminary spending. The other spending will be netted against the proceeds of the sale, and has been provided for with a token vote, as is the established practice. The final cost will be presented to the House as soon as possible after the privatisation sale—again, following the established practice. That is all perfectly proper.
It is clearly too early to make any estimate of the final costs because numerous factors may affect them. However, we are seeking to keep the cost to the minimum commensurate with maximising the proceeds of sale because that will obviously be to the benefit of the taxpayer. In all this, we are seeking to ensure value for money. That is why we have awarded contracts by competitive tender, and are therefore getting competitive rates.
Electricity privatisation is an extremely complex exercise, but advisers are appointed only where a clear need for expert advice can be demonstrated and where that advice is not available within the Department. Therefore, the appointment of advisers is the most cost-effective way of obtaining expertise. The bulk of that advice is on accounting and legal matters.
We are seeking to ensure not only that the privatisation of the electricity industry is a success, but that the taxpayer and the community as a whole benefit from that success. We have always sought to make what we are doing clear to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and he, of course, has been given ample information, including a list of the advisers appointed by the Department, a list of the advisers appointed by National Power and PowerGen and the area boards, and our estimated costs up to the end of 1989–90, together with our estimates for this year. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has sought further information from the regional electricity companies.

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not give way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] With respect, I have very little time.
In every privatisation, the total cost of the privatisation as a percentage of the sale proceeds has been small. In Britoil, it was 5.5 per cent; for British Gas, it was 3.4 per cent; and for the water privatisation it was 2.5 per cent. Those costs, as a percentage of the sales proceeds, were spent in ensuring the maximised return from the proceeds to the benefit of the taxpayer. As I said, we are seeking to ensure the minimum cost commensurate with the maximum proceeds.
Opposition Members seem to scowl at both marketing and advertising. The marketing of the industry is necessary to ensure that we have maximum wider share ownership, including among employees. Marketing is designed to ensure that we achieve value for money and that there is proper information that can lead to the formation of a proper share price, which again leads to the maximum proceeds. Similarly with advertising: it is too early to estimate the costs of an advertising campaign, but it is intended to ensure maximum proceeds for the taxpayer. It is surprising that Opposition Members, who are quick to criticise when they feel that the Government have not secured the maximum proceeds for an industry, should be so derisory when we take all proper efforts to ensure that we achieve the maximum proceeds.
All the advisers who have been retained by the Department of Energy punctiliously meet the conventions governing the appointment of such advisers. All those appointments have been made in accordance with the proper proprieties and to ensure value for money. There has been no breach of any rules. Every appointment has been made in accordance with the clear criteria set out by the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Dobson: If all the proprieties have been followed, why were not many of those advisers appointed by competitive tender? That point was confirmed by the Secretary of State in an answer to me.

Mr. Baldry: With respect, all the advisers have been appointed by a proper competitive process, to ensure proper competitive forces—

Mr. Dobson: The Minister should ask the Secretary of State about that.

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman's mathematics leaves a lot to be desired.
Not only is his mathematics wrong—he was incapable of deducting the £9 billion of Nuclear Electric from the value of the electricity assets—but so is his methodology. The current cost accounting method is not an appropriate basis for valuing the industry because it seeks to measure replacement value, which is not the same as what the taxpayer has paid for the assets. One must therefore look at the written down costs, which are estimated at £10 billion.
Estimates of the sale proceeds are at present somewhat speculative. However, the benefits of the privatisation are not only the money that it realises, but the benefits of competition; of downward pressure on prices; of wider share ownership; and of removing the burden of interest costs from the public to the private sector. Competition and market forces are already producing real benefits in the price reductions that have been achieved for large industrial users. Our prices are good news for customers, industry and the environment.
The opposition has been based on a complete misunderstanding of the position and on ignorance of the progress being made. The benefits already secured in privatising the industry are considerable. The Opposition say that they want to get proper value for the industry, yet they criticise the valuation and marketing exercise which the Government are undertaking and which will ensure that we realise a proper return for the public.
This debate—

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 298.

Division No. 259]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Alton, David
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fearn, Ronald


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G"n)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haynes, Frank


Carr, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Janner, Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kilfedder, James


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David


Doran, Frank
Lamond, James


Douglas, Dick
Leadbitter, Ted


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leighton, Ron


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry





Litherland, Robert
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Randall, Stuart


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Redmond, Martin


McAllion, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Richardson, Jo


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robertson, George


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly negatived

Question, That the Proposed words be added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 187.

Division No. 259]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Alton, David
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fearn, Ronald


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G"n)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haynes, Frank


Carr, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Janner, Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kilfedder, James


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David


Doran, Frank
Lamond, James


Douglas, Dick
Leadbitter, Ted


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leighton, Ron


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry





Litherland, Robert
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Randall, Stuart


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Redmond, Martin


McAllion, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Richardson, Jo


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robertson, George


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sheerman, Barry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ashby, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bellingham, Henry
Cormack, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Favell, Tony


Buck, Sir Antony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, John Dudley


Butler, Chris
Fookes, Dame Janet






Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, George
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moss, Malcolm


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Paice, James


Jack, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Janman, Tim
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Key, Robert
Portillo, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Price, Sir David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Raffan, Keith


Knapman, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Riddick, Graham


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)





Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thornton, Malcolm


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Tony Durant.

Division No. 260]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dunn, Bob


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)






Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hague, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Paice, James


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Janman, Tim
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Key, Robert
Price, Sir David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raffan, Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Knox, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim





Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sumberg, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Summerson, Hugo
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the privatisation of the electricity industry and the internationally recognised benefits which the Government's policies are already achieving through the introduction of real competition, the introduction of new and enhanced rights for the consumer, the emergence of new, cleaner, more efficient and cost-effective generating plant, through the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment and by ensuring that the needs of customers drive the decisions of the electricity industry.

Orders of the Day — Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that since the last time this subject was brought before the House, when the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill was debated on Third Reading, there have been some important developments on private Bill procedure. The first was the publication of the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, 1987–1988, House of Lords paper 97, and House of Commons paper 625. That report contained several important recommendations covering the matters before the House tonight. In particular, recommendation 9 dealt with ports and harbours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman says to the Lords amendments to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I cannot see that a consultation paper is relevant.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: See? My hon. Friend is a lawyer.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help. My point of order to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is specific; I have not lost track of it. I referred to recommendation 9 dealing with harbours and ports. Procedural amendments were also made that touch upon proceedings: the deposit and advertising of private Bills that are now before the House. I draw to your attention a further development: the publication by the Lord President of the Council of the document that I hold in my hand. Last Thursday, I asked the Lord President of the Council whether he would make clear the Government's position on the private Bill procedure. At 3.30 pm, he said that a written answer and a document would be placed in the Library. This document is a consultation paper. It may be a Green Paper, or it may be a White Paper—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to procedural changes that may or may not take place some time in the future. Under the existing procedure, we are about to deal with Lords amendments to a particular Bill. Any point of order must be directly related to the existing procedure.

Mr. Bell: I now approach the point of order that I have for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the latest edition of "Erskine May", page 861 states:
If any stage of a Bill is proceeded with when the notice has not been duly given, or the proper interval allowed, or if notice is taken of any other formality, the proceeding will be null and void, and the stage must be repeated.
My point of order for you is that important and serious changes have been made to the private Bill procedure since the House last met on the issue. The Government have said that they intend to change the law of the land in relation to the private Bill procedure. That is clearly stated in the document issued by the Lord President of the Council.
Have the Government, either through their business managers or through the usual channels, intimated to you that as a consequence of the proposed changes to the law they wish to defer the private Bill that is before the House? I draw your attention to the quotation from "Erskine May". I ask you to be kind enough to suspend the sitting until you have taken the advice of the Clerks and ascertained whether the situation has changed. If it has, I ask you to rule that we cannot proceed with consideration of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What we are about to do is perfectly in order. I emphasise yet again to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that we are now working under our existing procedures and that what has been set down for debate today is perfectly in order. The sooner we get on with it the better. Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) ought to keep quiet and pay attention. It is an important matter. You will recollect that when the Bill began its passage through the House we said that it was a hybrid, not a private Bill. At that time the Chair ruled, and has ruled on several occasions since, that it is not a hybrid Bill, so the procedure is correct. Would you consider suspending the sitting until you have had time to reflect on the fact that the Government have been involved in the various stages of the Bill? In view of the Government's involvement and connivance, I ask you to suspend the sitting and then to rule that this is a hybrid Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing further for the Chair to reflect on. The Chair has reflected over a good many months on the Bill and on the procedures that we are following. They are wholly correct.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take points of order, but it would be very much tidier if the hon. Member who is sponsoring the Bill, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), were able to move the motion. Then I should be prepared to take points of order.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).

Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to clarify the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). When the Bill received its Third Reading in the House, there was a good attendance by Opposition Members. The amendments that were made in the other

place could have been made in Committee in the House of Commons. Was the Bill in its correct form when it received its Third Reading in this House? It could have been amended in this place but it was not. The Bill was introduced in 1988 and received its Third Reading in 1989. We believe that amendments were made in the other place to prevent the Opposition from tabling further amendments to the Bill here and scrutinising it properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make points of that kind when we debate whether the amendments should be considered. It is not a point of order for me. It is a genuine point that could be made in the debate. That is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible if the Question were proposed so that these points could be raised legitimately on the Question whether the Lords amendments should be considered.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall be able to persuade you that consideration of the Bill should not continue and that the sitting should be suspended. Paragraph 26 of the special Committee report recommended that
In our view it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal-mining industry.
The Select Committee of the House of Lords supported that view in paragraph 23. I ask you to bear it in mind that the Government have responded to neither of those reports, which recommend that special protection should be granted to the coal industry. I ask you to suspend the debate until we receive such an assurance from the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to do that. I have dealt with that point. These are not matters for me. There may be changes to the procedure in due course, but until it is changed I am bound to observe the rules of the House and the existing procedure. What has been set down for debate today is perfectly in order. I suggest that it would be wise to get on with it.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take the point of order of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have two points of order for you. I shall deal first with the slighter one. On Thursday afternoon, during questions to the Leader of the House, I made the point that I had tried to obtain copies of the amendments the day before and also at 3 o'clock on Thursday afternoon before I came into the Chamber. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). I was assured that the Lords amendments were not available. One hour later, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) vigorously waved in the House a document that I think he hoped that we would


accept. It was a copy of the amendments. He implied that what I had said to the House was untrue. That is unacceptable.
I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear that in no way does he deny that inquiries at the Vote Office in pursuit of copies of the amendments resulted in information being given to me that they were not available. I accept that they became available some time before 4 o'clock, but they were not available at 3 o'clock. It is unreasonable that the amendments were not available until such a short time before the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to make it absolutely clear that he was not suggesting that my hon. Friends and I had misled the House.
My second point of order is much more serious. I have never been an expert in the bureaucratic aspects of parliamentary life, nor do I have a detailed knowledge of parliamentary procedures, but it appears to me that the way in which the Bill has been managed, throughout the long period in which it has been under consideration, means that we are now treated as if the House of Commons is an inferior part of the legislature to the other place. We have an obligation to maintain the importance of our democratically elected Government and to make it clear that the House of Lords cannot override or disregard the rights and powers of the House of Commons. Those rights and powers are being challenged by the way in which the Bill is being presented tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: First, I understand that the amendments are available and have been available for some time, and I made specific inquiries about that. As I have told other hon. Members, the other points that the hon. Member has made are legitimate points to raise in the debate that we are about to have. As a specific point was directed at the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, if that hon. Member has anything to say on that point, of course I shall call him.

Mr. Michael Brown: Are you calling me to make my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am very happy to respond—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At the moment, I am calling the hon. Gentleman further to the point of order, if he wishes to comment on the points that were specifically made about him.

Mr. Brown: If it will assist the House, I am willing to respond to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). In no way would I ever accuse him of midleading the House, and if he took what I said as an implication that I was making such an accusation, I withdraw any such suggestion.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 186, dealing with private business. It states that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who governs the procedures of private business in the House, may give directions for the printing of any amendments,
including a requirement that the clause as amended shall be printed in extenso with every addition or substitution in distinctive type, and the omissions included in brackets and underlined.

That has not been done. We have a single sheet of typescript with no clear relationship to the clause. The first two amendments alter clause 3 and the remaining four amendments alter clause 18, which is a short clause that alters the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 by substituting a further provision. I should have thought that the four alterations to a clause that is about 10 lines long, the extent of the alterations and the fairly radical changes involved are sufficient to suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means should have carried out Standing Order No. 186.
This is a controversial measure, which has been going through the House for some time. I should have thought that, out of consideration for all hon. Members who are interested in the Bill, at least Standing Order No. 186 should have been carried out. It may be Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you wish to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means, and some of us would be very happy for you to suspend the proceedings while that consultation takes place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has very largely answered his own point. He said that the reference that he read out is permissive. I am satisfied that the amendments as printed and the Bill as available make it quite clear to what the amendments refer and that nothing further is needed.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that, when your office looked at the amendments from another place a week or a fortnight ago, they were in order, but as a result of an incident that occurred only a week ago——the Spanish trawler case, which called into question certain legislation passed by the House as it is affected by EC directives——it has been brought to my attention that complaints have been made to the European Commission concerning the failure to carry out an environmental assessment of the Immingham project.
If that is so——I have no reason to believe that it is not—whether or not we debate it tonight, we are discussing the Bill in the certain knowledge that it will be challenged in the courts immediately. That challenge will come from either the European Commission or an individual. As the matter has arisen only in the past week, I should have thought that it cannot have been taken into account by Mr. Speaker in considering the Lords amendments. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for saying that we should not debate the Bill tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion sounds to me pretty remote from what we are likely to have before the House, but when we debate whether the Lords amendments should be considered, if he catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, he can have a go at finding out whether he is in order.

Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on an issue that has generated some confusion because of the history of the Bill as it has progressed through the House. Everyone knows that there have been many hours of discussion on the Bill. Amendments have been tabled in the House of Lords so that they can come to this House unopposed. The Lord President of the Council, in a written reply on 21 June, stated:
The procedure for those matters which would remain to be dealt with by private Bills will be reformed along the lines


suggested by the Joint Committee and as broadly accepted by the Government in the debate on the report. The Government believe that those proposals, taken as a whole, will provide a more appropriate way to deal with infrastructure projects in the modern age by protecting the interests of all those involved.—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 628.]
Many people in my constituency could be affected by the legislation, so if the Lord President of the Council's reply on 21 June is as I interpret it, I assume that there is no further cause to discuss the Bill tonight. As it is confusing, I ask you to suspend the proceedings and get the Lord President of the Council to come here and give an interpretation of his reply on 21 June.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be ingenious, but it has nothing to do with the debate that we are about to have. I suggest to the House that it would be sensible to move the motion now so that we can debate in a proper manner whether the Lords amendments should be considered.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like your guidance on an important issue. My constituents may suffer tremendously as a result of the legislation. I draw to your attention the fact that, according to European legislation, an environmental assessment should have been made. As no such assessment was made, the number of lorries that will come through my constituency——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot possibly be a point of order, but if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching the Chair's eye when we reach the debate, he can have a go then.

Mr. Terry Patchett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On local television which covers the constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said quite clearly that he was dissatisfied with the procedures of the House for dealing with the Bill. He said that he intended to challenge or to question the procedures of the House. Is not it unfair to proceed with the Bill until the sponsor has explained his position? He has challenged the procedures of the House, and I hope that we shall give him a fair hearing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a most helpful point of order. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I made: it would be much more sensible if we allowed the sponsor of the Bill to speak to the amendments. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the House will soon feel that it would be sensible to follow him.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During his point of order, I heard a disgraceful smear on the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). He shouted across the Benches that his hon. Friend was grovelling only to save his small majority in Nottingham. I have been criticised in the past for making that comment, but it is a bit much that his hon. Friend is smearing him so disgracefully. Will you come to the rescue of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South and ask the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes to withdraw his disgraceful attack?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am trying to come to the rescue of the House so that we can get on with the business.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have sat in the Chair many a time on private Bills and watched them being steered through. No doubt you are aware that on such occasions there are no Whips. I must draw to your attention the fact that a breach of that convention has taken place. I have the Labour Whip here, which says, "Opposed Private Business"; there are no lines, nothing. That means that no direction whatever is being given to my hon. Friends. I received a Whip from the other side, which I picked up.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Where did that come from?

Mr. Skinner: Some research assistant let it slip through. It says, "Dear Norman"——presumably that is Tebbit——
Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, Lords amendments, Monday 25 June 1990 7 pm to 10 pm. I am delighted to report that this Bill has now received its Third Reading in the House of Lords"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This may be a very interesting, but whipping has nothing to do with me. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Skinner: It is quite simple: private business is not whipped. The Chairman of Ways and Means finds a suitable time for the Bill. There is no collusion between the Whips to decide what the agenda will be for the parliamentary week. The Chairman of Ways and Means decides because it is a private Bill, which means that there are no Whips on it. The Tory Whip says:
Unfortunately the Lords have made several minor technical amendments which will he heavily contested in the Commons on Monday 25 June.
I have only——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have told the hon. Gentleman more than once, this may be very interesting and revealing but whipping has nothing to do with the Chair. We have had a good run on points of order. We really should get on with the debate before the House.

Mr. Skinner: I should like to believe that that is true, but the Whip goes on to advise Conservative Members
to be in their places between 7 and 10".
and talks about the Bill
having gone for two and a half years. We must assist to reach the finishing post. The Brown legislative programme invites your continued support once again,
Yours ever"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a point of order—

Mr. Skinner: "Michael Brown, the Member for"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is an experienced parliamentarian. I have told him three times that what he is raising is not a point of order and I am sure that he knows that that is correct.

Mr. George Galloway: I hope that this is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take you back to the written answer given by the Lord President of the Council? It seems to many hon. Members that it is germane to consideration of this business. Have you read that written answer? If not, will you suspend the House for five minutes so that you can do so and properly apprise yourself of its import?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot possibly see that that written answer has anything to do with the business before the House.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Further to that point of order of the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), a former constituent of mine whose vote I was sorry to lose. I should like to take up his point about the scurrilous remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) trying to save his seat. We are trying to save the seat of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes because his rural constituents will turn him out at the next election if this goes through.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I thank you for at last seeing me behind my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)? I was panicking that points of order were exclusively for hon. Members taller than 5 ft 1 in.
I wish to draw your attention to the Official Journal of the European Community, published in 1985, on articles of the convention relating to environmental assessment studies. Paragraph 8, which has been adopted by the Government refers to
Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1,350 tonnes.
Parts of the Bill are covered by that European Community document, so it should have been taken into consideration before the Bill was brought before the House, but it is clear that it was not.
Therefore, the Bill should return to the other place so that that procedure can be carried out. Without it, the European Court can challenge the procedures of the House. It is important that the procedures on the article are not put aside. The article was introduced to protect petitioners against the misuse of the private Bill procedure in places such as the United Kingdom, particularly on Bills that relate to huge industrial developments such as this port. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as someone who has looked after the interests of hon. Members, to take into account the article, stop this procedure and return the Bill to the other place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the House once more that the motion and the amendments are in order. We should now get on with the business before the House.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Lords amendments are not numbered and do not give us full details, but there appear to be six of them. Will the House take them in order? Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) speak initially to the first Lords amendment? I have a second point of order to raise as well, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a fair point. It would be better to proceed first with the debate, if we are to have one, on whether the Lords amendments should be considered. When that is out of the way, it will be perfectly legitimate for the hon. Members to raise that point again. We shall deal with it at the more appropriate time.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose——

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Bradford, South once already and I have dealt with his point.

Mr. Cryer: It is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has had one go. I have called every hon. Member who wished to put a point of order and have dealt with those points of order. I hope that the hon. Member will feel, either now or once he has raised his point of order, that it is appropriate to proceed with the debate.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we deal with the Adelphi Estate Bill, reference was made to several 19th century Acts of Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out that it was difficult to get elderly Acts of Parliament from the Library, because they were unique and precious. The first group of Lords amendments refers to changes from section 85 to section 85E of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. I imagine that this Bill falls into the same category as the Adelphi Estate Bill.
Have the Bill's promoters troubled to produce extracts from the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, just as the promoters of the Adelphi Estate Bill took the trouble to do after this point was brought to their attention? That leglisation was circulated to Members, rather than have Members in the Chamber handle heavy and fragile bits of legislation, dug out of the Library shelves. As we are talking about the application of a different section of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you have any information about the provision of copies of the legislation to hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My impression is that all the relevant information is available. It would be better if the hon. Member were to raise those points when we consider the Lords amendments.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Brown: I should like first to make it clear that I certainly did not wish to impugn the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). If I did so, I withdraw any such suggestion unreservedly.
Clauses, 3 and 18 were amended in Committee in the other place. The amendments to clause 3 are necessary to clarify and specify the application of the clause. The amendments to clause 18 are necessary because of a change in the general law since the Bill was deposited before Parliament.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) chose his words carefully and said that the Lords amendments had been tabled because of changes made since the Bill was laid before the House. We all know that the Bill was introduced in the House years ago. As I said on a point of order, these amendments could not have been tabled during the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. Consequently, they


should have been tabled in Committee. The legislation to which the amendments refer was implemented more than 12 months before the Bill completed the Committee stage.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I happen to have a copy of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. I glanced through it, looking for a reference to the date on which the amendments could have been put forward. The date has been revised to 31 October 1979. Therefore, surely the Lords amendments could have been made properly to the Bill during the past 10 years.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend's assessment is correct. I can do no more than agree with him.
A motion has been tabled to the effect that the Lords amendments be considered upon this day in six months' time. I support that motion. The Bill has had a long history, and we have had many debates on it. It has been scrutinised by a Committee and was passed on the Chairman's casting vote. The amendments laid were not accepted because of the Chairman's casting vote. We have had many debates about the Bill's implications for the coal industry. The amendments which were not accepted in the House of Commons or in the other place in Committee related specifically to that point.
My opposition to the Bill, because of its possible effect on the coal industry, has not wavered since the Bill was introduced.

Mr. Michael Welsh: It is obvious to everyone that great damage will be caused to the industry. Is not the Bill also important in terms of the great damage that it could do to the environment?

Mr. Barron: I am sure that that is true. I was about to say that that was a principal reason why I support the motion that consideration should be adjourned for six months. We are not saying that the Bill should be defeated, as we have done in the past—although, given the opportunity, I certainly would. We are asking the House to delay considering the Lords amendments for six months.
Our arguments on the Floor of the House and in Committee were as one in terms of the effect on the coal industry. Over the past five years, the industry has done remarkably well because of a massive improvement in productivity. Sadly, about 30,000 jobs a year had been lost over the past five years—150,000 jobs overall. This is hardly an industry that should be penalised for what it has done over the past five years, but we know what the Bill will do.
Some of those in the other place who had presented petitions against the Bill changed their minds. They argued strongly in Committee and on the Floor of the House that there should be environmental assessments of what will happen if the terminal goes ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) made that point.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern expressed in the other place about the increased transport that would result from the extension of the ports—5 million or 6 million tonnes of bulk cargo a year? An attempt was made to table an amendment, but Sir Frank Layfield advised the Committee on behalf of the petitioners that there were sufficient powers in local government legislation to control that traffic. Expert witnesses speaking on behalf of Doncaster council,

including the research officer——who was an agent for the Coalfield Communities Campaign in the other place——the director of planning and the director of the public works directorate, have suggested that there is no such power in that legislation. That being so, should not we delay our debate so that Sir Frank Layfield's evidence can be examined in the other place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is painting the background to the debate and to the amendments that may eventually be considered. But before he answers that point, may I remind the House that this is a comparatively narrow debate? We are discussing whether the Lords amendments should be considered, and we should remember that those Lords amendments are limited and technical. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind in his comments.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Mr. Illsley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 18(2) says that certain things may apply,
subject to the provisions of subsection (3) below, in its application to development authorised by this Act".
I seek your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the words "this Act" refer to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill or to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, and if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye he may be able to make his points. The matter that he has raised is not a point of order.

Mr. Barron: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). But, of course, my hon. Friend was quite right that the evidence given in Committee in the other place suggested that the lack of an environmental assessment study would not prejudice events away from the ports. We have discovered since that more relevance was attached to lorries having access to the main motorway network than to their coming out of the ports or arriving at their destination. The local authorities have discovered that, in those circumstances, they do not have the powers that the Committee in another place suggested.

Mr. Alan Meale: I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). However, we are talking about not only the environment but jobs. In the past few days, there has been another pit closure in my constituency. British Coal has argued to the unions that closures have resulted from the fall in value of coal because of the availability of cheap foreign coal which is already coming into Britain. Much more cheap foreign coal will come in through our ports if the Bill is passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will stay in order in responding to that intervention. I remind the House once more that we are debating a comparatively narrow motion——whether the Lords amendments should be considered.

Mr. Barron: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for


Mansfield, (Mr. Meale) have been debated when we have considered the Bill in the past, and I do not intend to cover old ground tonight.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend accept that the House should act consistently? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that less than an hour ago the House voted in favour of the Government amendment to the previous motion, which was highly relevant because it referred to the Government's commitment to the protection of the environment. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley is in order if he argues that we should not proceed to consider the Bill because the Government's commitment to the environment is imperilled by the Bills' progress.
My hon. Friend should continue to press for a delay in further consideration of the Bill so that the environmental impact assessment that has already been mentioned can be carried out. If that is not done, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will have to speak in terms that we can hear and understand, as we were unable to hear or understand him when he opened the debate. He must be able to convince us and to persuade those who voted less than an hour ago for the Government's commitment to the environment that the environmental impact assessment should not proceed.
The European authorities and everyone else take the view that no such proposal should be enacted until there is a guarantee that a thorough environmental impact assessment will be made.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising on a point of order once again but since my original point of order I have listened carefully to hon. Members' interventions and to your views, Sir, concerning the narrow nature of the debate.
It has come to my notice that the Commission in Brussels has corresponded with a number of bodies on the subject of the Bill. I should like to quote from a letter from the Commission to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds earlier this year:
It is the opinion of the Commission that for a project to be exempted from the scope of the Directive it is necessary that an environmental impact assessment similar to that requested by the Directive is made in the process of adopting the new legislation.
That was the view of the Commission——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot possibly have anything to do with the motion before the House.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Mr. McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. Mr. Barron.

Mr. Barron: I agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) went somewhat wide and I accept your judgment on these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although what my hon. Friend said about the EEC directive was relevant.
I was questioning the arguments about the environment advanced in the other place, both in Committee and on Third Reading.

Mr. Andy Stewart: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is developing his argument well and cogently. Will he remind the House of the effect that a further 10 million tonnes of imported coal and the lorry movements that it will entail will have on the local environment? The 10 million tonnes of coal will mean 500,000 juggernauts travelling through the Humberside and Nottinghamshire villages, not on motorways but on unclassified roads.

Mr. Barron: I do not wish to go too wide of the motion, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a likelihood of that. I can only refer briefly to a letter from PowerGen to the chairman of Associated British Ports. One person whose constituency will certainly be threatened by the movements of lorries is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, who is the sponsor of the Bill.

Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage that may be caused to roads by the movement of coal? Nottinghamshire county council recently had to take the CEGB to court because of such problems and Nottinghamshire ratepayers ended up having to pay millions of pounds to repair the damage. That is an important factor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will ignore irrelevant comments, from whichever side of the House they may come.

Mr. Barron: I thank you, once again, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should like to move on——

Mr. Cryer: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will not omit to consider the argument that we should delay our consideration of the Lords amendments——that is the subject of the procedural motion before us——because of the sweeping changes that are taking place in South Africa. The Bill is designed to facilitate the importation of South African coal and the motion suggests that we should delay our consideration of the Lords' amendments for six months. Is it not possible that, in six months' time, the South Africans, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, will refuse to export coal to Britain in the interests of preserving and securing jobs and in the name of international brotherhood? My hon. Friend should consider that.

Mr. Barron: I do not want to follow that line of argument too far, because I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to order if I did. However, it is interesting to think about what would happen if the changes, which we all want, occurred in South Africa. We would then have to consider our attitudes to imports of coal from South Africa. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the price of that coal might rise if the South Africans began to pay decent wages in their coal mines. But as you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should not digress on that point.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is arguing for delay. We are all aware that the Bill has been progressing through the House for two and a half years. It has been subject to a


modicum of delay already. What has delay provided us with? We have had an opportunity to say that, when the Bill began its progress two and a half years ago, this country had a balance of payments surplus. Two and a half years later, it has a massive balance of payments deficit of £20 billion and rising.
I do not want anyone from any quarter of the House to tell me that my hon. Friend cannot refer to delay in terms of what impact the Bill might have on the economy or the environment. There has been a two-and-a-half-year delay, during which time Britain's economic position has been turned on its head. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand on the argument for delay so that the impact on the environment and on the economy can be examined. The Opposition are trying to delay the Bill because we have already learnt, during its passage, that it will make our balance of payments position even worse.
The delay in consideration of this Bill is important. It is also important that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and others can extend the debate so that we can prove to the country that we are doing a good job by delaying the Bill. It can already be argued that 10 million tonnes of coal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is good enough for an intervention.

Mr. Barron: I thought that that was a very good intervention as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorely tempted to continue along those lines, but I am sure that you would call me to order if I were to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is aware that energy imports have gone into deficit in this country over the past 12 months. As people look round the country and see that we are rich in energy, they must be shaking their heads and saying what fools we are for importing more than we are exporting.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is aware that it is more than 12 months since a cargo of extremely dangerous poison reached my constituency and was close to his. That stuff came into this country through a port. It could have come in through the port that we are discussing in the Bill. This country still lacks adequate legislation to control properly the import of such toxic materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that no new port facility or private Bill which facilitates such a development should be allowed to pass through the House until we have adequate regulations to prevent other people from suffering the anxiety, risk and severe disadvantage that beset my constituency. The Government have been powerless to do anything about that for the past 12 months.

Mr. Barron: I really do not want to pursue that line, although I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). I have received many letters about recycling which I can pass on to my hon. Friend. The port to which my hon. Friend refers is not many miles from my home, which is almost on the doorstep of my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. McCartney: Far be it from me to take my hon. Friend down a road along which he does not wish to travel, but it is important to be clear that no attempt is being made through the Standing Orders to legitimise the gagging of hon. Members on either side of the House to prevent them from debating the issue.
On 6 June this year, the markers that we had attempted to raise about environmental impact assessments and others matters, were properly debated in another place. For the life of me I cannot understand why, if unelected Members in another place could on 6 June consider those matters to be relevant to the Bill and reach a decision upon them, we should be prevented from doing the same this evening. Who is in charge of legislative procedures? Is it those in another place or the elected Members of this place? It is vital to make it absolutely clear that hon. Members will not be gagged and prevented from discussing the consequences of the Bill and the inability of the sponsor to bring forward environmental impact assessments as required by the European Commission.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall refer later to comments made in another place about those points.

Mr. Redmond: As for the problems with imports, I do not recollect that we were given any guarantee by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about nuclear fuel being imported or exported via the new facility. The hon. Gentleman might want to give that guarantee now, but I do not recollect such a guarantee being made before.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes appeared on television several times saying that there would be no nuclear dump in his constituency. Given that the new port could import nuclear fuel, has the hon. Gentleman had a change of heart? Is he satisfied that nuclear waste could pass to and fro through the new port?

Mr. Barron: If I was to comment on that point in any detail you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order. However, it makes me smile wryly to wonder, if the Bill had been promoted by British Nuclear Fuels plc or Nirex, whether the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes would be its in-house sponsor. Perhaps he would not. He might cause a by-election if he did so.

Mr. Martin Flannery: As a sober-minded citizen, as everyone knows, I believe that the motion that we are considering is, to say the least, absolutely reasonable. Six months is not a long time in the light of what is happening in the world. When the Bill first appeared, the political shape of the world was different from what it is today. Eastern Europe has changed massively. None of us thought that the miners in the Soviet Union could possibly strike, and suddenly we were alarmed when the miners went on strike in the Soviet Union.
Let us consider South Africa, where the situation is even more fluid than it was in the Soviet Union. The right wing was out in South Africa the other day and its supporters had their badges on their arms. I believe that they are fascists. The situation in South Africa——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech within a speech. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has got the drift, and that he will resist the temptation to get out of order.

Mr. Barron: I shall indeed resist that temptation, although I was quite enjoying the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)——

Mr. Flannery: I had not finished my sentence. I was saying that, in the past six months, the position in South Africa has been fluid. Certain people have attempted to overthrow the state and threatened to kill President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. I think that, as patient people, we should wait another six months before we discuss this matter.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his ingenuity in asking for the six-month delay in this motion, which involves eastern Europe and South Africa. I shall be even more grateful if it makes hon. Members vote with the Opposition tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield touched on an important point when he referred to the constitutional aspects of the Bill and the amendments, which all relate to planning matters. If the EC directive were implemented by another country, or by an individual or group of individuals in this country, we could be passing legislation knowing full well that we are supporters of that directive.
I shall tell the House briefly what is in the EC directive——

Mr. Skinner: Some of us are not too keen about that.

Mr. Barron: I understand my hon. Friend's keenness on the question of European Community directives. I shall refer to directive 185/337/EEC. Article 4(1) of directive 185/337/EEC says:
Subject to Article 2(3), projects of the classes listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
I shall resist the temptation to waste the time of the House by reading out all of it——

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has rightly quoted from a number of important articles. However, unless he gives us clear indications of the precise nature of the subsections, Opposition Members will not be able to follow his argument as well as we would like. I implore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to insist that my hon. Friend reads out the appropriate article.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be better to let the hon. Member for Rother Valley make his own speech in his own way.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An interesting issue arises here. During debate on Government Bills, if a Minister quotes from any document, he is required by Standing Orders to place a copy of that document on the Table. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would tell the House what the position is with regard to these documents, copies of which have not been placed on the Table. As my hon. Friend is quoting, will he have to place a copy of the directive on the Table?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must protect the hon. Member for Rother Valley, who is being put off by all these bogus points of order.

Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to be bordering on a contempt of the House for such an important document to be quoted without any hon. Members having access to it, without its being placed on the Table and without my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) giving the House the benefit of reading it. I implore him to do that, as it is absolutely germane to the debate.

Mr. Barron: I do not wish to upset my hon. Friends; I may need their support in the Lobby later. If hon. Members would like to see a copy of the directive, I could put it through a photocopier later, and perhaps they could read it before they go to sleep.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend could move the Adjournment of the House until appropriate copies of the regulations have been made available, so that hon. Members can consider them in detail. It would be more appropriate for hon. Members to see them now, rather than after the Division.

Mr. Barron: May I take my lead from the Chair, and say that the Adjournment of the House is not a matter for me? I was quoting from the EC directive, and explaining what article 4(1) meant. Annexe 1, which is mentioned in article 4, relates to planning matters that should have an environmental assessment, according to the directive. I am sure that all hon. Members know that Britain is a signatory to that directive. It refers to
Trading ports and also inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1,350 tonnes.
In those circumstances, it is relevant that the Bill fits the EC directive. I question whether it is right for the House to pass the Bill now, and not to wait the six months proposed in the motion so that an environmental assessment can be made.
All hon. Members know that the proposed terminal would make this facility the largest bulk terminal in the United Kingdom, other than ports used exclusively for the use of British Steel. It cannot be considered a mere extension of the existing facility, as it would scrap the existing facility.
The terminal is aimed primarily at a new market—those needing steam coal for power stations——rather than intended as an extension for existing customers. In those circumstances, it fits the directive.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I support the point that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is making.
It is almost unnecessary even to debate whether this is a modification or not. Associated British Ports has already argued that it wants the new facility to compete with Antwerp, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. If the port authority is seeking to compete with ports of that size, there cannot be a shadow of a doubt that the directive is relevant. Therefore, the environmental considerations have to be taken into account. We are wasting our time debating the matter until that question is resolved.

Mr. Barron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. More to the point, because direct competition with European ports is involved, it is more likely that there will be a challenge on the ground that the Bill is against the EC directive. If the Bill is passed, Britain could end up in the European


Court. Consequently, as legislators, we would all be made to look fools because we did not take the right course when the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend mentioned the European Court. The decision on Spanish trawling rights is even more serious, as it has meant that legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament can now be suspended, for the first time. The precedent has been established that legislation approved by the House can be suspended pending the outcome of the final hearing. It is even more serious than my hon. Friend has suggested. Because there is an EC directive, any other organisation, port authority, port, shipper or transport organisation can go to a British court and ask for an injunction suspending the legislation. In view of that, it behoves us to defer any consideration of Lords amendments until the position is clarified.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I feel that it would be hasty at this stage for us not to take heed and have a six-month break. Article 1.5 of the EC directive appears to provide an exemption from having to conduct an environmental assessment. It is an exemption relating to
projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this directive, including that of supply and information are achieved through the legislative process.
No information was supplied by the developers. Therefore, the exemption should not apply.
I have a note on environmental assessment. I am sure that hon. Members will be more than pleased to hear this as well. I have a list of projects that are going through parliamentary procedures and which have conducted environmental procedures. They include the King's Cross redevelopment by British Rail and London Underground, the light rapid transit project in the west midlands and the Jubilee line extension by London Underground, which will shove its head out somwhere near the House. Other Bills include measures in respect of the port of Hull and Associated British Ports. An environmental assessment of more than 200 pages has been published since that Bill was published. We have not had one sentence on this Bill.

Mr. Hardy: Hon. Members will recall—I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) will attend to this point—that we have had several debates, and all that the hon. Gentleman has wanted to do is formally move the Bill and get it through. The hon. Gentleman is again trying to pull a fast one by gabbling his introductory words when no one could hear them. I do not know whether he was trying to give information. I hope that the authorities of the House will take the view that was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—that the exemption cannot apply in respect of this legislation because at no stage has the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes provided necessary details of the environmental assessment.

Mr. Barron: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have a small list of projects in accordance with annexe 1 of the directive. They include the Isle of Grain gas importation and the other was the Isle of Grain container port with Highland Participants plc. Another was the Pittenween development by Fife regional council and another was the Hayle harbour development by the Hayle harbour company. All those projects involved inland ports and waterways that needed environmental assessments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth is quite right. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes and Associated British Ports have not given one detail about environmental assessment.

Mr. Redmond: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) willingly give way to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) if he wishes to clarify that matter and perhaps explain why he has not done so previously? May I have an assurance that my hon. Friend would give way to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Barron: I am quite prepared to do that.

Mr. Michael Brown: I take a strong view on matters of this kind. I was one of those hon. Members——probably in the minority, but we were joined by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)——who voted against our entry in to the EC. I did so because I believe that this House, and this House alone, is the determining factor in the government of this country. I am not impressed by any impost that is forced upon this House or any legislation that it chooses to pass. I have a low opinion of anything that the European Commission might be inclined to do to contravene legislation passed by this honourable House and the other honourable House. I have a low opinion of any European legislation that would override decisions taken in this House.

Mr. Barron: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not recall that he has opposed every European issue that has come before the House. I do not want to be distracted from the points that I am trying to make. This matter is about the environment and the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman should have made sure that the environmental impact of the development was taken into account before it was forced on to his constituents.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) cannot get away with that anti-Europeanism. In 1988, the House passed two set of country planning and environmental assessment regulations. Local authorities are now required to act on assessment studies under the regulations, which are not precisely based on European regulations. The House has passed legislation that the company and the hon. Gentleman should take into account.

Mr. Barron: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Haynes: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will realise that people in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire travel to that area for their summer holidays. I refer to the Camping and Caravan Club. Many hon. Members, particularly those from Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, have caravans and they go to Brigg and Cleethorpes. I have heard rumblings about what they would think if the development went ahead. I should have thought that it was in the hon. Gentleman's interests and those of his constituents to withdraw the Bill right now.

Mr. Barron: I shall certainly pass on that offer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. The correspondence that I have had from people in the hon. Gentleman's


constituency is more concerned about proposed changes in a caravan site. For example, I have had correspondence with the clerk to the hon. Gentleman's council.

Mr. Redmond: I also have had many letters from people in that area. It has not been made clear that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is supporting alterations to the caravan site. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make it clear to people who go to that area that he does not support them and that, as far as he is concerned, they can go elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must get back to the motion.

Mr. Barron: Getting back to the point, we discussed the situation——

Mr. McCartney: Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, I invite him to deal with environmental assessment procedures published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I hope that the Minister is listening, just in case he might like to respond to my hon. Friend. Page 23 of a document on projects approved by a private Act of Parliament states:
an environmental statement which can be considered by the select committee and standing committees of each House on the Bill
should be paraded by the promoter. That has not been done. If that is not a flagrant attack on parliamentary procedures, I do not know what is.

Mr. Flannery: A breach.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister owes it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to make the Government's position clear on the failure to follow the procedures that were set down by the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is again moving away from the matter before the House. I remind hon. Members that the subject is relatively narrow—it is whether or not the Lords amendments should be considered.

Mr. Barron: I want to explain why I believe that we should support the amendments when we consider them in six months' time. There have been several interventions——

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am about the question of environmental assessment, as it links in with the amendments? There is to be a change in clause 18, which shows the difference between using the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 and 1988. I do not think that there is a conflict of interest between the environmental assessment argument and the use of the General Development Order. I have some experience of planning matters, and they all involve environmental issues. There is no conflict.

Mr. Barron: Whether or not there is a conflict is not a matter for me, but I take my hon. Friend's point. He had many years' experience of planning matters before he came to this House.
There is a lack of information, because there has been no consultation either in this House or in the other place——

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just received an urgent message that two prisoners have died at Hindley remand centre in Greater Manchester. Could arrangements be made for the appropriate Home Office Minister to come to the House at 11 pm to make an urgent statement about the conditions in that remand centre and the background to the appalling deaths that occurred this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot deal with that sad matter at the moment, but I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Barron: I am sorry to hear the news that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has just given the House.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has just informed me that a bomb has exploded at St. James's, so there should be a statement on that important matter. Indeed, I wonder whether we should continue with the debate. There should be discussions between the appropriate people about an urgent statement by the responsible Minister.
Although we are discussing the important subject of the environment, I am not sure that we should continue, because we need statements on other important matters. Prisoners have been killed and bombs have exploded, yet we are discussing a matter that we all know can be discussed later. The Minister——he is the only Minister present——has good reason to speak to the Government Whip about urgent statements. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could quite easily facilitate that by suspending our discussions——even if only for a relatively short time—while arrangements are made for those urgent statements.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are serious matters, if they are correct. Again, what has been said has been noted by those on the Government Front Bench. One of the great glories of the House of Commons is that our proceedings are not interrupted by any incident outside.

Mr. Barron: I was talking about the lack of consultation on environmental assessment. Simply because no information has been supplied does not mean that there has been an exemption in the operation of the EEC directive. Indeed, in a letter dated 14 February 1990, Mrs. Elizabeth Dissing of the European Commission wrote to Mr. Standaring of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, and said:
For a project to be exempted from the scope of the directive, it is necessary that an environmental impact assessment, similar to that requested by the directive, is made in the process of adopting new legislation. If an environmental impact assessment is not made through the legislation process, the project is not exempted from the scope of the directive.
If that is the case, it is probable that it can be challenged under the European laws——

Mr. Meale: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point. The Bill must not be passed without an environmental impact survey, and not just because the


damage that will be done to roads in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and elsewhere. The Government are discussing with the European Community the planting of a national forest—a new Sherwood forest. My understanding is that the main area that it will cover will be part of Nottinghamshire, through Leicestershire and up to Yorkshire. It will envelop the area through which all the lorries will be trundling. The survey is essential before the Bill is passed.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is doing a good job. I am having difficulty in following the debate because the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is continually engaged in conversation with Conservative Members who are coming into the Chamber to ask him what time there will be a vote, what time he is fixing for a vote, and so on. That is interrupting our concentration. It is yet a further sign that there is a plot and that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to gag many Opposition Members who want to take part in the debate.

Mr. Barron: I have briefly read what was said by the European Commission about the operation of the directive in relation to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and assure him that this intervention is relevant, given his reference to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Indeed, my point illustrates the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing. Last week, an extremely rare bird, the night heron, arrived and can currently be found in the Denaby nature reserve in Don Valley. Its arrival has been well reported and many people have descended on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond).
At the moment, that bird is protected because it is in one of the reserves of the Yorkshire Wildfowl Trust, of which I am proud to be patron, and several people are supervising its welfare. But, if in a little while the bird decides to fly away, to tell other night herons of the splendid security, welcome and hospitality that can be found in Don Valley, it might fly east, and if it does, it will fly down the Humber——

Mr. Skinner: Is it a little plover?

Mr. Hardy: No, it is a night heron.
It might fly east, down the Humber, However, all the disturbances could prevent that bird either from reaching its home or from returning to my hon. Friend's constituency. That fact fully strengthens the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.

9 pm

Mr. Barron: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an intervention. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a scholar on the birdlife of Britain. I am more than interested to know that the night heron is currently residing within a few miles of my constituency. I may be tempted to go to see it at some stage, provided that I do not have to go out at night.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of my constituency are concerned about environmental matters and make generous provision to

enable visits from not only wildlife but the constituents of other hon. Members, who come to enjoy our quality of life? Yet it is that quality of life which the Bill and the Lords amendments are seeking to destroy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should leave the night heron to itself and get back to our business.

Mr. Barron: I agree entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not be dragged further into a debate about the night heron at Denaby or anywhere else.
I referred to the Commission's letter to the RSPB merely to point out that we should not ignore the fact that we, as legislators, should ensure that an environmental impact assessment has been carried out. We should instigate an environmental assessment as part and parcel of our legislation. However, most hon. Members—of all parties—agree that that has not taken place in relation to this Bill.

Mr. Meale: I should like to refer my hon. Frind back to our discussions a short time ago about a new national forest for Britain which, as I said, would cover Nottinghamshire, parts of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire. It will involve about £1 billion of European and British taxpayers' money. It is outrageous that any measure that could inflict such damage on the environment could proceed without an environmental survey of its effects being considered, if not carried out. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Barron: Although I do not want to go too wide of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the new forest that might be planted would cover part of my constituency. Like many other coal miners, I greatly appreciate long-term planning for the coal industry and planting a new Nottingham forest will help us in a few million years.
Just as you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was referring to our position as legislators and to the fact that we shall ignore at our peril the EC directive on the environmental assessment that should be carried out by legislators in the different EC countries, or in some other form, and to the lack of it——

Mr. Michael Welsh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Barron: I shall give way in a moment, but I should like to carry on for a little while, to get over the page.
Complaints have already been made to the Commission about the failure to cary out any environmental assessment of the Immingham project. However, I shall give way now to my hon. Friend before outlining the principle complaints.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I shall be brief. The promoters of the Bill say that this is a private Bill, so they do not need an environmental statement or assessment, although it has been pointed out that the Government believe that the promoters of the Bill should provide an environmental statement. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if they are right, 61 Tory Members, 18 Cabinet Ministers and 10 Whips voted for the Bill on Third Reading? Therefore, is this not also a Government Bill?

Mr. Barron: My opinion about whether this is a Government Bill is on the record. I do not for a minute disagree with my hon. Friend's figures, but if I commented


I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order because I would be going wide of the debate.
I have mentioned the possibility of likely complainants if the Bill proceeds in its present form. I hope that in the distant future the Lords amendments will be accepted by the House.
I have with me a letter sent by one of the original petitioners to the legal services department of the European Community about directive 85/337/EEC and the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It comes from Greg Kayser of the European relations sector of the Coalfield Communities Campaign secretariat. I shall not read the whole letter——[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I know that some of my hon. Friends will be disappointed; perhaps somebody else can do so. I shall read the relevant parts. It states:
I write as a matter of urgency following a complaint by the Coalfield Communities Campaign that directive 85/337/ EEC has been breached in the United Kingdom.
The breach relates specifically to the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place. The last paragraph of the letter states:
The Coalfield Communities Campaign urges you to give this matter your immediate attention and to apply pressure on the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to recommit the Bill. The Coalfield Communities Campaign will be available to discuss the case either by telephone or in Brussels at any time.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign, which is one of the original petitioners against the Bill, is not taking lightly the absence of the EEC directive with regard to this legislation. The legislation is likely to be challenged in the European Court, and certainly in the British courts, if the House does not recognise what has been said and change its mind to provide a breathing space of six months.
To discuss the Bill further now would pre-empt the outcome of the complaints. We can hazard a guess now that the CCC will be one such complainant, but we must remember that when the Bill started its passage, more than nine petitioners were against it. I understand one or two of them have direct interests in the particular area of Immingham. They continue to oppose the Bill in the other place and are likely to oppose it in any way that they can. One of the nine is likely to secure a judgment against the Bill because it is outwith the EEC directive. In those circumstances we should slow the Bill's passage and stop proceedings now, so that we do not make a fool of the House which is our principal legislature.

Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that the difficulties of Nottinghamshire county council arose because of damage caused and that the Trent area, where the power stations are situated, is about 70 miles from Immingham. But that council, which is part of the Coalfield Communities Campaign, said that it would have to go to appeal because of the likely environmental damage and because an environmental impact survey will not be undertaken before the Bill is passed.
In a letter from that council to the CCC stressing its reluctance to support the Bill, it gives as one reason the fact that being a highway authority, which it is, it cannot restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles on primary road networks. Another is that the power of the council as

a highway authority is limited to the immediate access road to a power station, so it is unlikely that access could be prevented for more than eight hours in any one day.
Those are both important factors. Millions of pounds of damage will be done to the environment and to the road network throughout Nottinghamshire with no environmental survey in sight before a Bill that will affect the county so badly is passed.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the chair, I raised on a point of order with the previous occupant of the Chair the need for a statement on the explosion just down the road at St. James's. It seems more than a little, not odd, but out of place and insensitive, for the Government not to make a statement before 10 o'clock on that incident purely because they want this debate concluded. I raised that point of order at least a quarter of an hour ago, and I thought that the Minister for Public Transport would convey that request to one of his ministerial colleagues and would manage to get one of them to give the House a report on that explosion. It seems to me that the Government are in a conspiracy with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and that they are refusing to make a statement because it might interrupt the debate, with the result that we would not conclude the business before the House. If that is the case, the Government are playing a very dangerous game.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order when he raised it some time ago. The then occupant of the Chair gave the hon. Gentleman the correct response, that there has been no request at this stage for a statement by any Minister. But of course members of the Treasury Bench are fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Barron: Before returning to my arguments, I will reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, who raised the important issue of an environmental assessment. I have a letter from the chief executive of PowerGen, Mr. Ed Wallace, to Mr. Stuart Bradley, managing director of Associated British Ports, the promoters of the Bill, on 21 March. It is a short letter, but its contents are important in terms of the environmental impact of the proposal on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, and of neighbouring constituencies, including that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Mr. Wallace wrote:
Following our recent conversation, PowerGen has given consideration to the various methods of transport which are available to take coal from the port of Immingham to PowerGen's various generating stations. We have looked at both the commercial and environmental issues involved"——
hardly an environmental assessment. He continued:
I am pleased to be able to confirm that we view the use of rail transport by British Rail to be an acceptable means of transport having a minimal environmental impact.
I am sure all the right hon. and hon. Members agree with that. He goes on:
Clearly, the use of such a mode of transport by PowerGen would not preclude the use of any other method if PowerGen so determine it to be desirable for commercial reasons.
That letter was relevant to my hon. Friend's question, and I read it out because any hon. Members with coal mines in their constituencies——there are a considerable number in mine——will know that when British Coal or anyone else, such as the CEGB, moves coal and the load


is not sizeable enough to fill a train, it goes by road. That creates havoc in my constituency and in many others, and we do not want that to spread.
We have changed the nature of buying coal for electricity generation. The industry is now considering buying coal in small amounts on the spot market at set times to make a quick buck. It is not importing coal as it used to do, under a 12-month contract, at a set price. With the changed circumstances, the coal may be imported in small ships, and it will not go by train because the shipload is meant for diverse locations and the amounts will be smaller than a train load. Therefore, we will have lorries running round the countryside.

Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the environmental impact assessment. In Committee, it was suggested that coal could be transferred to rail, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to barges. That was rejected. It is important for me to mention that point because other Opposition Members and one Conservative Member are also concerned about the issue and because there are no canals in and around the north Nottinghamshire area which could be used to take coal to power stations—it has to come by road.
Because of the Beeching cuts, only limited use of the rail network is possible from Retford works to Nottingham city and on to the Trent Valley power stations. If any coal is transferred from the Humberside-Immingham area to my part of the country it has to go by road, and the local authority—Nottinghamshire county council—has to bear the financial burden, because there is no alternative.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend makes his point very well and understands the dangers involved.

Mr. O'Brien: Will my hon Friend consider examples of areas where coal is transported by road to power stations? If he goes to Ferrybridge C power station he will find that the grass verges and the road are black with coal dust from the wagons which transport the fuel into the power station. There are canals and rail services, but because the Government in many instances oppose British Rail and British waterways they encourage transport by road, which creates tremendous problems.
The environmental issues are significant, and my hon. Friend is right to mention that the Bill will cause more transportation of coal by road. The examples are there and if anyone wants to see them I invite them to my hon. Friend's constituency, where I live. There is evidence of environmental blight caused by extensive use of road transport to carry coal. I hope that Conservative Members will listen attentively to what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Barron: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The problem affects his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the bomb explosion not far away from here. I understand that there are a number of trapped and injured people at St. James's. Could you tell the House whether the Home Secretary will be dealing with the police regulations which follows this business, in which case it would clearly be convenient for him to make a statement at 10 o'clock about the explosion? If you have

received no information, can you tell the Home Secretary that the House expects a statement at that time because of his presence here?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have received no information, but I am sure—as I said earlier and as Mr. Deputy Speaker said earlier—that it has been noted by the Treasury Bench.

Mr. McCartney: On a separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. About 30 minutes ago I rose on a point of order concerning Henley remand centre. Since then I have been informed that two 19-year-olds, who had not been found guilty of any offence, have hanged themselves in their cells. To my certain knowledge, there have been four deaths at the remand centre in the past 24 months. The position is becoming intolerable, due to the closing of Risley remand centre because of the conditions there and the need to transfer its inmates to other centres in the north-west. This amounts to a crisis for the families. They know that deaths have occurred at the centre. Moreover, on three occasions during the past 12 months industrial action has been taken by the staff because of conditions that affect both the staff and those on remand.
There is to be a debate later on the police regulations. I hope that the usual channels will refer this matter back as a matter of urgency. All hon. Members want information as soon as possible from the Home Office about both incidents. One is very much more serious than the other, but the deaths at the remand centre amount to a tragedy for all the families concerned.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Both incidents are seriously to be regretted. I have received no information about the matter, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted it. It is not, however, a matter for this debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Compared with the previous two points of order, this is a minor, technical and procedural matter that relates to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Before you came to the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the promoters had provided us with the relevant sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. This may be an even more serious matter than that which was raised by my hon. Friend. The only copy of that Act in the Chamber is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley).
The first Lords amendments seems to be minor and technical: that the reference to section 85 should be changed to a reference to section 85E. The sections of the 1985 legislation that are relevant to this measure are sections 77 to 85. Section 85 is now to be referred to as section 85E. The 1845 Act consisted of only nine sections that occupied two and a half pages——

Mr. Michael Brown: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard the original point of order. [Interruption.] Order. The Chair must occasionally be allowed to say a word. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be an important matter to debate as soon as we reach the amendments. Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 145.

Division No. 260]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Conway, Derek


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Critchley, Julian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dunn, Bob


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)






Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Malins, Humfrey


Gorst, John
Mans, Keith


Gow, Ian
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hague, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miscampbell, Norman


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Neale, Gerrard


Hill, James
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael


Holt, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Paice, James


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jackson, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Janman, Tim
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jessel, Toby
Pawsey, James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Key, Robert
Price, Sir David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Raffan, Keith


Kirkhope, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Knox, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim





Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sumberg, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Summerson, Hugo
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Irvine Patnick.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Allen, Graham
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Douglas, Dick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Beckett, Margaret
Fatchett, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fearn, Ronald


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Keith
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foster, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Richard
Fraser, John


Callaghan, Jim
Galloway, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
George, Bruce


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Carr, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clay, Bob
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cox, Tom
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cummings, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Henderson, Doug


Cunningham, Dr John
Hinchliffe, David


Dalyell, Tam
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Darling, Alistair
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)






Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
O'Brien, William


Hoyle, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Patchett, Terry


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Janner, Greville
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Charles
Randall, Stuart


Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Martin


Kirkwood, Archy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lambie, David
Reid, Dr John


Lamond, James
Richardson, Jo


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Madden, Max
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Maxton, John
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michael, Alun
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mowlam, Marjorie
Tellers for the Noes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Division No. 261]
[9.24 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Holt, Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Ashby, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, David
Hunter, Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Irvine, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Jack, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Janman, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Benyon, W.
Kennedy, Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Key, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Kirkwood, Archy


Boswell, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lawrence, Ivan


Brazier, Julian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lightbown, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lilley, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cash, William
Major, Rt Hon John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mans, Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maples, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Marlow, Tony


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Couchman, James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cran, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Curry, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Devlin, Tim
Moore, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dover, Den
Moss, Malcolm


Dunn, Bob
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Durant, Tony
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evennett, David
Norris, Steve


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fearn, Ronald
Oppenheim, Phillip


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Page, Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Paice, James


Fookes, Dame Janet
Patnick, Irvine


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Porter, David (Waveney)


Freeman, Roger
Raffan, Keith


Gale, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


Gardiner, George
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhodes James, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Gow, Ian
Rost, Peter


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Rowe, Andrew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hague, William
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hill, James
Shersby, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wallace, James


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wilshire, David


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Derek Conway and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Edward Leigh.


Walden, George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 156.

Division No. 261]
[9.24 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Holt, Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Ashby, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, David
Hunter, Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Irvine, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Jack, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Janman, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Benyon, W.
Kennedy, Charles


Bevan, David Gilroy
Key, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Kirkwood, Archy


Boswell, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lawrence, Ivan


Brazier, Julian
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lightbown, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lilley, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cash, William
Major, Rt Hon John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Mans, Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maples, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Marlow, Tony


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Couchman, James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Cran, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Curry, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Devlin, Tim
Moore, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dover, Den
Moss, Malcolm


Dunn, Bob
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Durant, Tony
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evennett, David
Norris, Steve


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Fearn, Ronald
Oppenheim, Phillip


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Page, Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Paice, James


Fookes, Dame Janet
Patnick, Irvine


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Porter, David (Waveney)


Freeman, Roger
Raffan, Keith


Gale, Roger
Rathbone, Tim


Gardiner, George
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhodes James, Robert


Gill, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Gow, Ian
Rost, Peter


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Rowe, Andrew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Ground, Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hague, William
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hill, James
Shersby, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Sims, Roger





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wallace, James


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wilshire, David


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Derek Conway and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Edward Leigh.


Walden, George





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Allen, Graham
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Alton, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Anderson, Donald
Grocott, Bruce


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter


Armstrong, Hilary
Harman, Ms Harriet


Ashton, Joe
Haynes, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Beckett, Margaret
Henderson, Doug


Bell, Stuart
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Illsley, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Janner, Greville


Caborn, Richard
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carr, Michael
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Knowles, Michael


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lamond, James


Clay, Bob
Latham, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Ian


Cummings, John
McLeish, Henry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas, Dick
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, Dave


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter L.


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flynn, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Randall, Stuart


Galloway, George
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


George, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Richardson, Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robertson, George


Graham, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan






Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Short, Clare
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wray, Jimmy


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Michael Welsh.


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Division No. 262]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baldry, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hague, William


Body, Sir Richard
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hill, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brazier, Julian
Holt, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Janman, Tim


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Kennedy, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkwood, Archy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Mans, Keith


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maples, John


Fearn, Ronald
Marlow, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Roger
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gardiner, George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony





Nicholls, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Norris, Steve
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Page, Richard
Stokes, Sir John


Paice, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Sumberg, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wallace, James


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Derek Conway and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: On a point of order——Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Hardy: I thought that I was merely intervening.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, on a point of order, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member rises to respond to your suggestion that we debate the proposition that we agree with the Lords in the said amendments, is it appropriate for you to decide that I am making a point of order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: If an hon. Member rises and seeks to catch my eye, I decide whether to bestow my favour on him.

Mr. Hardy: I am exceedingly grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take it that we are dealing with all the Lords amendments in the one debate, but that, at the end of that debate——if it ends——we shall proceed to divide the House on each amendment in turn. I should be grateful if you would clarify that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, the procedure is that we debate the amendments en bloc, but any hon. Member may call a Division on any one amendment.

Mr. Hardy: I am most grateful. That means that we are in difficulty, and that the debate may not be as concise and simple to follow at it would have been if we were taking each amendment separately. Inevitably, we shall be jumping from one amendment to another. If that is the rule of the House, hon. Members will have to be more

patient and accept that the debate will inevitably be more convoluted and complex than if we were debating each amendment separately.
A number of Conservative Members——not least the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)——may take the view that the amendments are completely trivial, and perhaps rather technical. However, Opposition Members do not accept that they are trivial, and—obviously——we are critical of the proposition that because they are relatively technical the House should not consider them at all. We could not possibly subscribe to such an illogical and unreasonable approach. Each amendment deserves careful scrutiny and detailed consideration.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you were in the Chair I referred to Standing Order No. 186 on private Bills. The Chairman of Ways and Means may require the promoters to set out amendments and to print clauses fully with the amendments in brackets and in bold print to help the House. As the debate is to finish shortly, it would be helpful if you could ask the Chairman of Ways and Means to arrange for that printing to be done. As you have made the point that we are dealing with the first two amendments together——I hope that we shall take the last four amendments separately——it would help the House if there were a requirement under Standing Order No. 186 to produce the information for the House. I hope that you will agree to request the Chairman of Ways and Means to do that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means has made his decision on that matter. He may or may not print the amendments as he wishes. The amendments are by no means substantive.

Clause 3

INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL ENACTMENTS

Lords amendment: in page 3, line 10, leave out '85' and insert '85E'.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
There are two amendments to page 3——

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order this time.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have a point of order from the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).

Mr. Hardy: My point of order follows on from the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). You have decided, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the six amendments should be taken together, even though we shall divide separately on them. That would make for a complex and convoluted debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has properly pointed out that, although the Chairman of Ways and Means regards the amendments as slight and technical, nevertheless they are sufficiently important to merit the


attention and attendance of a substantial number of right hon. and hon. Members. In view of that, it is reasonable for my hon. Friend to require a full presentation of the amendments. I see no reason why the amendments should not be specifically spelt out. If one looks at the first amendment——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that I am entitled to give the hon. Gentleman an answer. I have answered the points of order. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to recent precedents on the Isle of Wight and the International Westminster Bank Bills. All the Lords amendments were taken together. We are following a precedent of the House.

Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but may I ask your guidance on how we are to proceed with the amendments? Do I take it that we shall debate them in the pendulum manner that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), so that we shall move from one amendment to the other, with the whole lot being voted on at the end of the debate? Is it possible to deal with the amendments individually and not consider them in their proper order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendments will be taken en bloc. Hon. Members will debate the amendments collectively. At the end of the debate, any hon. Member who wishes to divide the House on any of the amendments——and I will go through them individually——will have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not quite hear everything that you said, for the very good reason that Liberal Democrat Members were discussing why they vote with Conservative Members. The drift of what I heard you say was that precedence suggests that all the amendments should be taken together and then votes taken separately, if required. You used arguments about the Isle of Wight Bill and so on——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday next.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House knows very well that there is a great deal of disquiet in all parts of the House about reports of an explosion in central London. I think he shares my view that it might help the House to progress and help to allay some of the disquiet if he made a brief statement on the subject.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was close to the scene of the explosion a little over an hour ago. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and I went as close as was judged prudent. We could not get a view of the scene, nor is it possible——I have consulted subsequently my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary——to give any definite information about the scale of the damage, its cause or the number of casualties. I am afraid that I cannot give any more information to the House tonight. Obviously, my right hon. and learned Friend will, in the light of further information as it becomes available, consider whether he should make a statement to the House tomorrow in the usual way.

Police

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 401), dated 1st March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be revoked.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss the next two motions on the Order Paper:
That the Police (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 469), dated 4th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be revoked.
That the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.R.(N.I.), 1990, No. 82), dated 26th February 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be revoked.

Mr. Hattersley: With the agreement of the House, I intend to concentrate almost all of my remarks specifically on our prayer concerning the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990, as the new regulations affect England and Wales. Others of my right hon. and hon. Friends will, if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, refer to the two other sets of regulations covering police arrangements for Scotland and Northern Ireland. In any event, the principle that we are discussing tonight is the same in each of the sets of regulations, and hon. Members who share my view on the way that the principle of this affair has been dealt with will share my view about the unacceptability of each of the three sets of regulations and will wish to vote against them.
I shall deal principally with the position affecting England and Wales, and I shall begin by briefly setting out the background to the sorry story on which the House must pass judgment this afternoon. The story begins with a claim by the Police Federation—I should more properly say, the employee side of the joint negotiating machinery—for an increase in housing allowance. An increase was, in its view, made necessary by the replacement of rates by poll tax, which for most policemen, as is the case with most other members of society, resulted in a substantially higher payment. It is no secret that the Government then advised the employers' side of the joint negotiating machinery—that is, the police committees of England and Wales, meeting together from time to time in London—on how they should respond to the federation's claim.
The Government said that the poll tax was a personal and individual tax and, unlike the rates that it replaced, was not appropriate for reimbursement by employers to employees. The employers—I repeat, basically local authorities, themselves basically short of income—accepted the argument and made a counter-proposal. That was to replace rent allowance with a new housing allowance which would be simply based on a rent calculation containing no element which would compensate what had previously been reimbursement of rates charges. The reimbursement of rates charges was previously part of the rent arrangement and, until then, had been an integral part of the rent allowance.
The employers' proposal would have left most—perhaps all—police officers substantially worse off. Not surprisingly, it was rejected by the Police Federation, which put the claim to arbitration. As is the case with most arbitrations, it was a compromise between two positions. However, it is important to understand that the arbitrators

accepted what for the sake of this evening's argument, I shall call "the underlying principle of the poll tax"—that it was regarded as a personal tax, not appropriate for reimbursement. I hope that we shall hear nothing more this evening about the police wishing, and demanding that they particularly, individually, and uniquely should have their poll tax reimbursed when nurses and others do not enjoy that privilege.
The arbitration award said specifically that it was the police officer's individual responsibility to pay what the Government insisted was an individual tax. In consequence, the arbitration award fell far short of the Police Federation's initial claim. However, it was based on the equitable principle that the arbitrators set out in paragraph 49 of the award, which stated:
Except for our treatment of the Community Charge"—
as some people call the poll tax—
we emphasise that nothing that we have proposed is intended to leave the police officers, as viewed generally, either better or worse off than before".
Many police officers would regard the phrase
except for the incidence of the poll tax
as a large exception, but
except for the incidence of the poll tax",
the arbitrators wished to leave police officers no worse off and no better off than before. To most reasonable people, I am sure that that would sound a reasonable answer.
On that basis, the employers—the local authorities—accepted the arbitration award. The employees—the Police Federation—also accepted the award, despite their strong reservations; they believed that, having asked for arbitration, it was their duty to accept what the arbitrators put to them. I have yet to meet a policeman who regards the award as reasonable, let alone generous, but the employees took the view that, having put the matter to arbitration, they had an obligation in honour to accept what the arbitrators proposed.
However, that was not the Government's view. The Government vetoed the arbitration, despite their professed support for the Edmund-Davies pay formula. As we all know, because this has been repeated in the House almost every year since the Edmund-Davies committee reported 12 years ago, Edmund-Davies explicitly stated that arbitration awards should be overturned only when such arbitrary action was justified on the grounds of the "utmost" or "grave" national emergency. Perhaps the Home Secretary will describe the "utmost" national emergency and the "grave" national emergency that justifies him overturning the arbitration award for the first time, or perhaps he will simply admit that he no longer honours and respects the Edmund-Davies proposal.

Mr. James Couchman: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, in the unlikely event of a Labour Government being returned, he, as a potential future Home Secretary, will promise now to honour the Edmund-Davies formula?

Mr. Hattersley: I fully accept that, without qualification. Indeed, I have seen the rather silly letter that the Home Secretary sent to Conservative Back Benchers which deals with exactly that point. I propose to come to that in a moment, but so that the hon. Gentleman should not be over-anxious in quoting the Home Secretary's misquotation of me, let me assure him that we would honour the Edmund-Davies formula. Indeed, we set up the Edmund-Davies committee. The Edmund-Davies pay formula is the result of a Labour initiative. I say a third


time and I shall say again towards the end of my brief speech that we would certainly honour the Edmund-Davies proposals.
Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he regards the national emergency as so grave that it justifies vetoing the proposal, or is he simply saying that he no longer respects at least that part of the proposal? The veto of the award puts in their proper place all the Conservative platitudes about supporting the police. This is not a policy for cutting crime. Everything that was said about supporting the police was cheap party propaganda, to be abandoned and forgotten when it was convenient. I hope that, as a result of this, at least in future we shall be spared the pretence that the police forces are the property of the Conservative party. That myth was shattered when the Home Secretary visited Scarborough last month.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: What will the right hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall deal with that. One of the flattering things about the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—I use the word "learned" in inverted commas, as one properly should—is that he always intervenes on the assumption that I am soon to be Home Secretary. It is a wholly proper assumption for him to make, and I propose to respond in exactly those terms.
The scheme which the present Home Secretary proposed in place of arbitration has been twice amended since it was originally announced, and it now has four basic elements. Officers presently receiving rent allowance will receive it, but will have it frozen at present levels. New recruits will receive a new housing allowance based on the old rent allowance, but excluding the rate element; thus, it will be considerably smaller than it would have been. The smaller allowance for new recruits will be updated annually on the basis of the retail prices index. When the new recruits' allowance catches up with the level paid to officers already receiving allowance this year, those officers will begin to receive an additional increase calculated on the RPI.
What that means in hard terms can easily be described: it is a substantial immediate loss of earnings for this year's recruits. They will earn substantially less than they would have earned had the Home Secretary not vetoed their award. In Norfolk, they will lose £1,674 a year, in Greater Manchester £1,245, in Surrey £1,109 and in Warwickshire £811 a year.
Officers serving this year whose housing and rent allowance is to be frozen will certainly receive no less money next year than now, but their rent allowance may well be frozen for 10 years or more, until the reduced allowance now being paid to new recruits catches up with what they are presently receiving. Serving officers are to face a decline in the real level of their rent allowance, because the money level is to be frozen for 10 years or more.
That is our first reason for praying against the regulations tonight. The principle that arbitration should be upheld is dear to this side of the House, but related to the principle is the practice. All reasonable people will take exception to the proposition that an employer can arbitrarily tell his employees that over the next 10 years they are, in effect, to receive a reduction in the pay which they legitimately expected and which was granted to them according to their terms and conditions of service.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to me how I can justify to my Derbyshire constituents that police officers receive £4,800 in rent allowance tax-free, which is over £90 a week, when many of my constituents do not even get that in total salary before tax?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Lady may not find the argument particularly attractive, but the way to justify it is to say that she believes in keeping her promises. This is an arrangement between the Government and the police, and until the Government want to negotiate another arrangement, it is dishonourable for them arbitrarily to abandon the existing one. The hon. Lady will find that her constituents are greatly more attracted to the idea of the Government keeping their promises than she believes, and she will find my case proven at the next general election.
Our second objection is that, as a result of the Home Secretary's action, many thousands of police officers will receive less than it was reasonable for them to expect and which was specified for them under the Edmund-Davies formula. When the Home Secretary speaks, he will doubtless say again that no serving officer will be worse off next year, and that is true. But the year after next, and for year after year subsequently, while the new recruits' rent allowance catches up with the level enjoyed by serving officers, those officers' real level of rent allowance will be cut.
Our third objection is the effect that it must have and will have on police morale, to a disastrous extent. There was never a time when a boost to the morale of the police force was more necessary than now. Policemen say openly and frankly that their morale has been damaged by the Government's privatisation of police services—by the use of private security services in areas that the police believe are proper only for them to deal with.
Police morale has been damaged also by a shortage of manpower, the facts of which are constantly obscured. Figures announced in one White Paper are repeated the following year as if they were new. No allowance is ever made for the reduction in police hours that comes from a reduction in overtime—although that reduction is often made to finance extra recruits. Most important of all, the number of new recruits is never compared with the extra duties now imposed on policemen.
Police officers are now required to perform tasks on the beat and in the station which would have been unthinkable before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the judgment of chief officers and members of the Police Federation, the police are more overstretched today than in 1980. Add to that the fact that, according to all informed predictions, we are about to see an unprecedented rise in crime rates to record levels, and this is clearly a lunatic time to assault police morale, yet that is exactly what the Government are doing. The intriguing question is why they are doing it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the history of many Labour local authorities, from which the right hon. Gentleman might quite properly wish to dissociate himself, of doing all they can to undermine their local police services, is he saying that he is setting forth among his other commitments one to increase the size of the police force? If so, by how much does he wish to increase its size, and what will it cost?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course I am setting forth that commitment. There are vast amounts of money to be saved in the Home Secretary's budget in the area in which it is most profligately spent, in sending to prison men and women who should not be sent there and who could be punished outside prison in ways better for the community and much cheaper for the Exchequer.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): rose—

Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary is about to intervene—I shall gladly give way—to say that he published a White Paper on punishment by sentencing in the community. When he does that, I shall welcome a sinner come late to repentance, because he is adopting a policy which the Opposition have been advocating for 10 years.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman does not lack cheek. He waits until we publish a White Paper which advises more punishment in the community, and he then gets to his feet and pretends that it is Labour policy, when, throughout the whole time that it was in office, Labour carried out entirely contrary policies. I have never heard such nonsense in all my life.

Mr. Hattersley: With respect, the Home Secretary is a little confused about the facts. As the police know, if he does not, we published a document on that issue three months before he did and—what is more important—we have been advocating that policy for 10 years longer than he has.
Before I deal with my next point, I wish to answer the matter raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about Labour local authorities. There was a time when we were accused of failing to support neighbourhood watch schemes. At present, Labour local authorities are virtually unanimous in their support of neighbourhood watch. I notice the chairman of Crime Concern nodding in his place on the Tory Back Benches. No doubt he will nod again, as he is nodding now, when I say that the problem with neighbourhood watch now—as he has identified—is that the Government are not providing enough money to enable it to be extended and improved.
I want to return to the subject of police morale, because all informed predictions suggest that we are about to see an unprecedented rise in the crime rate. It is impossible to imagine a worse moment to strike such a severe blow at poice morale. Once again, I ask why the Government choose to do so at this time.
A reason of sorts was given by the Home Secretary in a letter which he sent to Tory Back Benchers—I am not sure whether he sent it to all Back Benchers or to hand-picked Back Benchers—on 19 June.

Mr. Marlow: He did not send one to me.

Mr. Hattersley: Well, no one would choose the hon. Member.
The letter included the following sentence, saying that the Home Secretary
could not accept a recommendation which would have meant rent allowances continuing to rise at a rate which bore no relationship whatsoever to the actual cost of running a home.
What the Home Secretary did not tell his colleagues, and what the letter did not say, was that the independent

arbitrators, picked in part by the Home Secretary for their independence and wisdom, had made an exact and specific judgment on whether housing and rents allowance was rising at an unacceptable speed. They said:
We were given no compelling evidence that the level of rent allowance is out of control. The level is fixed by established criteria and, whilst it is not suggested that these should not, from time to time, be reviewed, those currently in use appear to confirm the logic of previous accepted criteria.
No evidence that the rise was running out of control was given, which is the excuse provided by the Home Secretary, in the hope that a few more supine Back Benchers would go into his Lobby this evening. The Home Secretary knew, as he has always known, how weak his case for vetoing the award is. Indeed, I give him credit, as a blunt, practical man, that, had he been in charge when the award was veteod, it would have gone ahead. The poisoned chalice has been passed to him and, if I may scandalously mix my metaphors, he must defend it as best he can. That is why he made two extraordinary sets of wholly cosmetic adjustments to the original awards.
I shall take one example from each group. The first adjustments were made on 15 March—the day of the police national rally in Preston. It belatedly agreed to the re-evaluation of those rent allowances—about half the total—which were due for bi-annual review this year, but for which no review was to be allowed. As the meeting was taking place in Preston, the Home Secretary belatedly agreed to a re-evaluation being carried out, but only on the basis of the retail prices index, and not, as is usually the case, on housing costs. Thus, he left many thousands of police officers disadvantaged as compared with other officers.
Last week he made a series of adjustments, which were even more bizarre and wholly cosmetic. One was the announcement that, if one officer was married to another officer and one of them took unpaid maternity leave, the officer who remained at work would no longer receive only half rent allowance but would receive the whole rent allowance. Of course, the officer who remained at work would have qualified for the whole allowance anyway, since the other officer was no longer being paid by the police service, and did not qualify for any rent allowance. The Home Secretary should be driven into—[Interruption.]

Mr. Waddington: Opposition Members may think that these are funny matters, but all three of them arrived on my desk as a result of representations made by the Police Federation. Surely I am entitled to some credit for listening to their concerns and for trying to do something about them.

Mr. Hattersley: I make no secret of the fact that my party consults the Police Federation. The proposal was described to me at 3 o'clock this afternoon by the Police Federation as absurd. If, however, the Home Secretary wants to apply his fine and clear mind to the logic of promising to pay somebody something to which they are already entitled, we shall be delighted to hear his explanation.
No one who considers these matters can doubt that these cosmetic changes reflect the absurdity of the position in which the Home Secretary finds himself. Therefore, I want to suggest to him how he could get himself out of the mess—a mess so obvious, even to him, that the Government have run away from debating the subject for


the last four months. The prayer should have been debated soon after the regulations were laid. It is a scandal—a legitimate scandal, in terms of the House of Commons' rules, but a scandal nevertheless—that we are debating the regulations months after they came into operation.
I have no doubt that the Home Secretary thinks that, by playing for time, he has sapped the resolve of some of his Back Benchers who at one time intended to vote against him this evening. As the night wears on, we shall see the sort of metal they are made of. The fact that the Home Secretary has—I repeat—run away from the debate for four months suggests that he at least is beginning to understand the problems that he faces. I hope that he has the grace to welcome some advice about how to get out of them.
First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should honour the arbitration. That is the basic principle of good industrial relations—certainly for a Government who prefer compromise to consultation and for a Government who understand the special position of the police force, which is unable, quite rightly, to take sterner action in its own interests. Secondly, when the Home Secretary has honoured the arbitration, he should think about the long term. If he agrees, as I do, specifically and explicitly with the arbitrators who say that police pay contains too many anomalies and inconsistencies, he should set out to negotiate—I emphasise, negotiate—a new deal with the Police Federation.
In his letter to Tory Back Benchers, the Home Secretary was kind enough to quote part of my speech to the Police Federation conference. Working from the written text, he correctly quoted the following words:
The time has come for a general re-examination of the structure of wages within your service.
Then there was a line of dots in the Home Secretary's text. He then quoted me as saying:
If the structure of police pay is to be changed, it must be changed by negotiation.
That is my view and opinion. However, the Home Secretary then thought it right to put his own gloss on my view and opinion. He said:
Labour have not bound themselves to honour the Edmund-Davies formula.
Some of the Home Secretary's Back Benchers fell for that sentence. Even on the evidence that the Home Secretary quoted, that is a strange proposition. Since the Labour party is committed to a negotiated settlement, the proposition assumes that the Police Federation would be prepared to negotiate away Edmund-Davies, which is unlikely. Moreover, there was an addition to my speech that the Home Secretary will be pleased to hear when I send him the tape recording of what I said. It was added because I was advised on the morning that I made the speech that
Some malicious idiot might try to interpret your offer as something different from Edmund-Davies.
I do not know to whom that referred, but I thought it right to insert the words
Of course, until the negotiations are completed, Edmund-Davies will be honoured.
The truth of the matter is that Edmund-Davies is not being honoured now by the Government. Edmund-Davies is inherently a proposition on wages and conditions, and conditions relate to housing and rent allowance. The arbitrators said in their award that, if the Government interfered with the proposition on housing and rent

allowance, they would be disturbing the pattern of the Edmund-Davies formula. The Government have certainly done that.
I repeat to the Home Secretary that it is bad not only for the individual police officers who will lose over the years but for the country because of the effect that it will have on police morale. Police morale will suffer not only because the officers will lose money but because the arbitrary, unthinking way in which it was done will convince them that the Government are prepared to sacrifice their interests for a comparatively small amount of money.
Many hon. Members will stand up for their interests tonight. Some of them will be Conservative Members and the police will be comforted by that, but I believe that they will be more comforted to know that, sooner or later, they will get the pay award that they deserve.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has constructed his case on an entirely false basis, as will become clear to him after the first few minutes of my speech.
First, I remind the House that we are debating three separate sets of amending regulations relating to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The arrangements for payment of rent or housing allowance have long been due for an overhaul. Rent allowance was intended to place officers who live in their own homes on a broadly equal footing with those who live in a police house or quarters, but there has long ceased to be a credible relationship between the two.
Much has been made by the right hon. Gentleman of the decision to set aside certain conclusions of the police arbitration tribunal. There were, however, very strong, grounds for doing that, as I shall explain—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will listen, they will learn something which they obviously do not yet know.
In any case I must make it clear that the tribunal is there to enable the two sides of the police negotiating board to arrive at recommendations when negotiations break down. These recommendations are then put to me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But tribunal recommendations are not binding on the Secretaries of State, as is absolutely clear from the Police Negotiating Act 1980. If the right hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy in future of reading the legislation before he makes his speech, he would know that is the case.

Mr. Hattersley: I am not suggesting for a moment that the Home Secretary behaved illegally. Had he behaved illegally, we should have pursued him in a different fashion. I am suggesting that he behaved wrongly. That is the case that he has to answer rather than some spurious suggestion as to whether he behaved within the law. We took that for granted.

Mr. Waddington: That is the usual waffle we hear from the right hon. Gentleman. The Police Negotiating Act 1980 went through the House long after Edmund-Davies. If he looks carefully at the Police Negotiating Act, he will see that the function of the police arbitration tribunal is to


try to reconcile the two sides on the police negotiating board, but when eventually a recommendation is made to me, it is for the Secretaries of State to decide whether to accept those recommendations. That has been so since Edmund-Davies reported, as the right hon. Gentleman must know full well. It is therefore complete balderdash to speak of a breach of an agreement with the police, because no agreement is involved. The award that was made by Edmund-Davies was finally implemented by the Government, and the 1980 Act reaffirmed that eventually it is for the Secretaries of State to decide whether to accept an arbitration decision.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Home Secretary is right that it is complete balderdash, will he explain why level-headed members of the police force in Scotland are so angry about what has happened? Why should they be so angry if it is complete balderdash?

Mr. Waddington: I am addressing my remarks to the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that an arbitration decision by the police arbitration tribunal is binding on the Government.

Mr. Hattersley: In honour, if not in law.

Mr. Waddington: In honour, if not in law; that is what the right hon. Gentleman says. I do not suggest for a moment that if a person who is receiving a large allowance is told that it will not be increased year after year he will not be unhappy; of course he will.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Home Secretary accept that we are talking not merely about new recruits but about existing members of the force being severely affected by the regulations? Does he also agree that because police forces do not resort to industrial action they have always relied on the arbitration service to reach an appropriate deal? Does he feel no moral responsibility to members of the police forces?

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Lady will let me get on with my speech, she will find that we have made special provisions for existing officers. The original provisions made for them were made more generous as a result of representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the Police Federation. We must make our own decisions on these matters, on the merits of the recommendations, regardless of whether they are made after recourse to arbitration.
Every four or five years, police pay and allowances are reviewed by the police negotiating board, and they were so reviewed in 1988. After a reference to the tribunal by the official side and an award subject to further negotiations in the board on a variety of detailed matters, things moved slowly and further recourse to the tribunal seemed likely.
Meanwhile, the then Secretaries of State were worried that any outcome based on the tribunal's award was likely to give rise to problems, and it seemed wrong that the two sides of the police negotiating board should continue to talk without being made aware of those difficulties. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who was then Home Secretary, wrote to the independent chairman of the police negotiating board on 23 October last year, pointing out, among other things, the difficulty of a formula that involved reimbursement of

rates, when they no longer existed, and giving notice to the board that the Secretaries of State could not commit themselves to meeting the recommendations of the board solely because they were supported by an award of the police arbitration tribunal.
Last autumn, my predecessor made it abundantly plain that it would be very difficult to achieve a formula which resulted in rent allowance being paid on the basis that rates, which were no longer payable, should be included in the total which was then divided into rent allowance.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman should know—I am sure that he does—that that was the reasoning of the police negotiating board.
Despite the letter, the negotiations proceeded on their original basis. Disagreements about the remaining issues were resolved by a further application to the tribunal in November, and as a result of this second major award by the tribunal a police negotiating board agreement was finally delivered to the Secretaries of State on 20 December. On 4 January, the board was informed that the agreement was unacceptable to me and was asked to comment on draft regulations incorporating what we believed to be the right approach.
On 17 January, I met the chairman and secretary of the staff side together with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and, as a result of representations made, I agreed to make major changes. But there were certain key recommendations of the board which I could not possibly accept. For example, the old allowance was based on the supposed open market rent of a typical police house plus rates, and I could not possibly agree that into the pool out of which the new allowance was to be paid should go an amount to cover rates when they no longer existed; nor could I accept the recommendation that police officers in police houses should receive the new allowance and pay rent.
The payment of rent would have meant giving the occupants the right to buy, and police houses are badly needed—[Laughter.] I do not see what is particularly funny about that. It would not have been wise of a Secretary of State to accept a recommendation by the police negotiating board which would have resulted in people in police houses paying rent having the right to buy and therefore the stock of police houses gradually diminishing. [Laughter.]
I assume from the hilarity that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook agrees that that would have been absurd. If so, where does his argument that one must accept all the decisions of the arbitration tribunal stand? It is as plain as a pikestaff that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that is one recommendation of the arbitration tribunal that could not possibly have been accepted by any responsible Secretary of State.
Moreover, serious difficulties could have been caused to individual officers in the not unlikely event in some areas that the rent they were charged would exceed the new allowance. Some officers would almost certainly have lost heavily.
The new allowance, still based on what is assessed to be the open market rent of a typical police house now in a particular force area, will have to be revalued from time to time, and the board proposed that it should be increased


every two years by a combination of two indices. The first was the index of regional house price movements compiled by the Building Societies Association. The second was the housing element of the retail prices index. The logic of basing an index on house prices, which represent a potential capital gain to the house owner, is, to say the least, highly questionable. Such an index would almost certainly lead to steep increases over time and a return to the craziness of the old system from which most people would say we had to escape. It led to completely bizarre increases, which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not faced up to, such as the 57.5 per cent. increase for the Metropolitan police in 1989 and 67.2 per cent. for Warwickshire in 1989—in other words, the increases did not bear the slightest relationship to the true increase in the housing costs of the officers concerned and their absurdity could not possibly be justified on the basis that they were necessary to maintain recruitment.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Who authorised the increase for the Metropolitan police of 57.5 per cent?

Mr. Waddington: The amount awarded to the Metropolitan police was the amount calculated on the regulations approved by the House. The new allowance will therefore be increased every two years in line with movements in the general index of retail prices, an index which, of course, includes mortgage repayment costs.
There is then an odd thing called the compensatory grant—the repayment by the police authority of tax paid on rent allowance—which is a considerable benefit in itself. Here the tribunal came up with a very strange suggestion. It wanted everyone to lose compensatory grant from now, those in service before 1 April and new recruits alike, but recommended that the money saved as a result should be used to make part of the new rent allowance pensionable. It seemed to us that it would be difficult to devise any fair or logical scheme on those lines, and in any event police pension arrangements are already generous and it is difficult to see any justification for further improvement in them.
Therefore we decided that serving officers should keep the compensatory grant as part of crucial transitional provisions to protect them. In short, those officers receiving rent allowance on 31 March will continue to receive the same level of allowance, including the rates element, despite no rates being payable by them. They will continue to be paid compensatory grant until the new housing allowance, which as I have said is based on the rent of a typical police house in the force area uprated by the RPI, reaches the same level.

Mr. Marlow: It has been explained to me, although I do not know whether the explanation was accurate, that some police forces had their rent allowances uprated last year according to housing costs and other forces are having the rent allowances uprated this year according to the RPI. It is suggested that similar police forces in similar parts of the country with similar housing costs are getting different allowances. Is that correct? If it is, how does my right hon. and learned Friend justify it?

Mr. Waddington: I shall come to that in a moment. I can tell my hon. Friend now that rent allowance always differed from force to force because it was based on different housing costs in the sense that it was based on the typical value of a police house in one area compared with

another. Some police forces have always had their rent allowances updated in an even year while some have had them updated in an odd year. Simply as a result of that, representations were made to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and Police Federation officers. As a result of their representations I made an important concession. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me and I shall deal with that.

Mr. Hattersley: May we have the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) cleared up? As he said, the uprating is done on a different basis from the previous uprating, thus leaving, let us say, Thames Valley and the Metropolitan police unequal in that one force does not benefit to the same degree as the other. That is a simple fact and I do not understand why the Home Secretary does not agree with his hon. Friend.

Mr. Waddington: That was always the case and if the right hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have heard me say that. Housing allowances and costs differ from area to area. If one takes a 10-year period for one force and compares it with a 10-year period for another, one will find that sometimes the even-year force does better and sometimes the odd-year force does better.

Mr. Marlow: May I put my point again? Is it possible that in two areas where housing costs are the same or similar the rent allowances now available to police forces are different?

Mr. Waddington: Under the existing system, the allowance differs according to housing costs. Under the new system it will differ in the same way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The only difficulty arises because 33 forces are updated in an even year and 20 are reviewed in an odd year.
When I announced my proposals in January I received representations from colleagues about the alleged unfairness to the 1988 officers of continuing to pay them an allowance assessed in that year and not uprated to take account of changes since. As I said, I had representations from a number of people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the chairman and secretary of the Police Federation.
Because I was impressed by the strength of the pleas made to me, on 15 March I announced a significant change in the original proposals. In effect, officers in the forces last reviewed in 1988 will have their red circled amounts, as they are called, uprated by the retail price index for the period between the date of their last review and 1 April 1990. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will mind if I say that that was twice as good as the proposal that he put to me. He suggested that the grievance could be met by an uprating for the 1988 forces which would increase those allowances by one year according to the RPI. We actually decided to uprate them by two years.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Home Secretary accept that one grievance felt by many police officers is that, while the review is taking place, it would have been better to resolve some of the other anomalies? Bearing in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), there will be a £2,000 discrepancy between the Merseyside force


and the Cheshire force as a result of the Home Secretary's announcement about rent allowances. Does he accept that that will cause considerable anguish among serving police officers in difficult areas like Merseyside?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct. In any event, the anomaly, as the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to admit, has always existed. We have tried to correct what was perceived to be an injustice by not freezing the 1988 forces at the valuation then placed on their rent allowances, but by having an uprating according to the RPI.

Mr. Shersby: If my right hon. and learned Friend will reflect on what he has just said, he will recall that I pressed him originally to bring those forces on the 1988 revaluation up to the same level as those that were revalued in 1989. I went on to say that if that proved impossible, at the very least I expected and hoped that he would bring those officers on the 1988 revaluation up to the 1989–90 level through the movement in the RPI over those two years, not one year.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is in error in his last point. However, the basic fact remains that my hon. Friend made a proposition to me and I readily accepted his suggestion.

Mr. John Ward: While my right hon. and learned Friend is dealing with that point, will he reflect on the fact that despite the concession that he made or negotiated with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), a Dorset policeman will be £856 a year worse off than a Hampshire policeman under the new arrangement? Would it not be sensible, as was suggested, to share the misery and ensure that at least in each region everyone gets roughly the same allowance? Otherwise, recruitment will be badly affected.

Mr. Waddington: It will not affect recruiting. The anomalies always existed and it would have been even more anomalous if we had paid the same rent allowance to all officers irrespective of the area in which they live when we all know perfectly well that the cost of renting a house differs greatly in different parts of the country. The allowance was always based on the difference in the market rent of a typical police house in a particular part of the country. Because that differed so much, rent allowances always differed greatly between one part of the country and another.
Following discussions with the Police Federation and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, I made a further change to help officers living in free accommodation provided by the police authority. It was represented to me that such officers were at a disadvantage compared with officers in receipt of rent allowance, the latter having their former levels of rent allowance including the rates element, protected as I have described on a mark-time basis. It was suggested that something needed to be done to help those officers who lived in police houses or quarters and who, up to 31 March, were living there free of rates.
Here again, I am glad to have been able to do something to meet the representations that were made to me. Hon. Members will see that the amended regulations provide for the payment of a transitional allowance of

£300 a year for three years to officers in a police house or police quarters who were living in provided accommodation on 31 March 1990. The Scottish regulations make similar provision from 31 March 1989. The allowance does not apply in Northern Ireland, because there is no community charge, and police officers therefore continue to occupy police houses or quarters free of rates.
Even that is not the last of the concessions that I have been prepared to make. As the police authorities came to implement the new arrangements, various other matters were drawn to my attention—much mocked, I might say, by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but obviously considered important by those who mentioned them to me—I thought that they should be put right, and I have proposed three further changes that will benefit serving officers.
First, it appears that some officers serving on 31 March would have been due to receive compensatory grant on not only their previous year's rent allowance, but the tax paid on compensatory grant itself in years before 1989–90. Although struck by the infinite complexity of the arrangements, I am content that those amounts should also be included in their red circling. Not only do those officers continue to get tax back on the rent allowance; they continue to get tax back on the tax back! It is as complicated as that.
Secondly, I have decided that, where police officers were married to each other and receiving flat rate rent allowance on 31 March, the husband should move up to full rate if his wife goes on unpaid maternity leave. Finally, if a similar married couple were living in a police house or quarters on 31 March and the wife goes on unpaid maternity leave, it seems to me right that when she returns she should resume her entitlement to provided accommodation allowance.
Draft regulations on all those matters have been sent to the police negotiating board for comment and, subject to that, will be laid before the House as soon as possible. They cover forces in England and Wales; similar drafts for Scotland and Northern Ireland will follow as soon as possible. I am sure that the arrangements are fair and reasonable.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: There is a widespread belief among policemen that the real reason for the anomalies to which the Home Secretary has referred—and to which other hon. Members have drawn attention—is that the cost of implementing the tribunal's findings would have been extremely heavy. What calculation have the Home Secretary and the Government made of that cost?

Mr. Waddington: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that rent allowances now take up 13 per cent. of total police remuneration. I can also tell him that, if more and more is spent on rent allowances, less and less will be available for other parts of the police service.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend: he has been very patient with interventions.
The problem is, I think, one of recruitment rather than anguish. Those of us whose local authorities are next to comparable authorities—in cost terms—are very worried about police moving from one authority to another. I am informed that, in Hertfordshire, 40 police officers have asked for transfers to other authorities in the past two


months. If there are recruitment problems as a result of the regulations, will my right hon. and learned Friend have another look at this and other aspects of them?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously, it is my duty to ensure that recruitment is maintained at a proper level for the sake of efficiency, and I can therefore give my hon. Friend the undertaking for which he asks. I must add, however, that I see no evidence of a fall in police recruitment; in fact, I think that we are about 0.2 per cent. below establishment at present. That is contrary to the position back in 1977, when people rushed out of the police force because of the paltry wages that they were getting under the Labour Government. No Government could have allowed a system under which rent allowances continued to roar out of control in the way that I have described. All of us would have wished to protect serving officers by ensuring that they did not lose anything in cash terms. That is what we have done.
I must stress that the new allowance still represents a most substantial addition to police pay—police pay which, under the Edmund-Davies formula, has increased well ahead of inflation since 1979. Let there be no doubt about it—we reaffirm our commitment to Edmund-Davies.
I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I am bound to say that no reasonable person could have read what he said at the Police Federation conference and think that it was a reaffirmation of Edmund-Davies, so the right hon. Gentleman has had to do some pretty swift thinking since then. As he has now said that a Labour Government would be committed to Edmund-Davies, perhaps, some time before the end of the debate, he will tell hon. Members what additional amount an incoming Labour Government would be prepared to dedicate to rent

allowance over and above what we are prepared to spend. In other words, let him tell us precisely what is the financial commitment of a future Labour Government. Of course, he has not said one word about that.
In view of some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, there is only one motto for the police service to remember—"Never trust Labour". I say to the police, "Labour let you down in the 1970s when officers were leaving the service in their tens of thousands because of such poor pay, by the standards of your fellow workers, and they will let you down again." When, during the miners' strike and at Wapping, the police were protecting the right of every man and woman to work and to get to his or her place of work free of molestation, they got no support at all from the right hon. Gentleman.
I remember the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with his usual weasel words, condemning violence from wherever it came—by which he meant action taken by the police to contain violence, as much as the mob violence making that action necessary.
Not so long ago, too, the Opposition reaffirmed their determination to repeal the prevention of terrorism legislation. Those people, masquerading as friends of the police, would deprive the police of powers that every policeman in the land knows to be essential in the fight against terrorism. I do not take lectures about my responsibilities from a mess of a party like that. When it faces up to its responsibilities, I shall perhaps be prepared to listen.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. I ask for brief contributions, please.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is perhaps a measure of the weakness of the Home Secretary's case that he found it necessary to resort to the jejune arguments relating to police powers and did not answer the substantial questions that were raised earlier on the level of police remuneration and the structure and method of determining police pay. It is bizarre also that the Home Secretary reaffirmed his support for Edmund-Davies, when at the heart of the Edmund-Davies report is a clear message that police pay is to include rent allowances and that the whole structure of police pay was based upon that assumption. Perhaps that was an inappropriate formula for the future, and therefore it was necessary for the Government to raise some of the issues that followed the introduction of the poll tax in the police service. However, it was not appropriate simply to override the Edmund-Davies formula on remuneration, and in so doing to set aside the arbitral process that was so integral to the ultimate determination of police pay.
It is quite clear that Edmund-Davies has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance in this round of negotiations. It would have been better if, as soon as he took office" the Home Secretary had made clear his judgment that there was a need for a round-table conference on the future of police remuneration, in the light of the circumstances that he has described, and not resorted to the simple procedure of rejecting the findings of the arbitral tribunal. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, they were difficult negotiations. Both sides had to make compromises, which were then embodied in a recommendation. It is true that the Government are not bound in law to accept that recommendation, but most Home Secretaries would regard it as foolish not to do so.
On previous occasions when arbitral findings have been questioned—between 1984 and the time when the Home Secretary took office, there were some six occasions on which the police negotiating board could not reach agreement and the matter was submitted to the arbitral tribunal—those findings were upheld. Even at the time of the ill-fated intervention of the previous Home Secretary on 23 October, when he meddled in the negotiations in the manner described by the Home Secretary, it was thought that it was the Government's clear intention to abide by the results of the process. Why, otherwise, bother to meddle? If, at the end of the day, the previous Home Secretary intended simply to lay down the law and utter his fiat, what was the purpose of his intervention?

Mr. Waddington: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the whole of my right hon. Friend's letter? In paragraph three, he said:
However, in present circumstances we do not believe that we can commit ourselves to meeting the recommendations of the Police Negotiating Board.
My right hon. Friend fairly intimated, on 23 October, that there would be difficulties if the police negotiating board produced conclusions along the lines of those that it eventually produced.

Mr. Maclennan: I have the whole of the former Home Secretary's letter in front of me. As I read it, the difficulty that he mentioned related to the cost of the proposed settlement. The reluctance of the Home Secretary in his speech tonight, and in answer to my intervention, to reveal

the possible cost of carrying out the arbitral finding reinforces the impression that finance is at the bottom of it. Cash is at the bottom of it, not any schematic difficulties. There are always schematic difficulties in dealing with police pay, and there probably always will be—so long as there are 47 different police authorities in England and Wales, and different police authorities in Scotland, there will be no nice solution to these problems. Money seems to have been at the heart of the matter.
The modest changes that have been made as a response to the substantial outburst of anger in all parts of the country from the police, who are not a noticeably militant organisation, have created further anomalies and difficulties. I do not propose to repeat those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in his understandably long speech. However, in this short debate, I wish to draw attention to at least one of the problems that has arisen, and about which concern has been expressed by the Northern constabulary in Scotland, as an illustration of the Secretary of State's failure to deal with the problem.
I refer to the proposed £300 allowance to those living in police accommodation. That has not been a source of gratitude; it has brought about an awareness of the inequity of what is proposed, because many officers who have been living not in police-provided accommodation, but in lodgings that they have had to find, are very much worse off than those who are the beneficiaries of the modest change. I must advise the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is with him on the Treasury Bench, that there is the gravest anger and disquiet throughout Scotland at what has been done. One letter that I received from the Northern constabulary states:
The regulations have torn us apart—my telephone is red hot every day and the Force morale as far as rent allowances is concerned is at rock bottom, and I can assure you that it is the same in every Force in Scotland.
It is probably the same in every force in England, too. Evidence that I have received from a number of different forces in England suggests that there is a seething anger about the way in which the matter has been handled. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) drew attention to the concern on Merseyside about the differentiation between the positions in Cheshire and Liverpool. I have also seen letters from, for example, Norfolk, addressed to Conservative Members as well as to myself, also expressing anger.
The Home Secretary failed to explain why he was not willing to enter into negotiations and discussions with the police, not only about the matters before the police negotiating board, but about his proposition that there must be a wholly new approach to police pay, which departed so fundamentally from Edmund-Davies in ruling out the rent allowances, and which set at nought the long and painful negotiations that had taken place. The Home Secretary has argued that he was not "obliged" to implement the proposals—I acknowledge that he was not "obliged" in law, but he was "obliged" in honest decency at least to recognise that the Edmund-Davies formula on police pay had, in the past, taken into consideration the unsocial hours, the restriction on private lives, the exposure to danger, the need to be on call, and the denial of the right to join a trade union. All those matters were in the Edmund-Davies formula on police pay.
Rent allowances were taken into account when setting the basic pay scales. The increases in the rent allowances were designed to reflect movements in housing costs, not living costs. The Home Secretary has departed from that formula in the regulations. If we assume a continuing rate of inflation at 7.5 per cent., which may not be a fair assumption in the light of current rates, the transitional rent allowance will be worth only a third of the current value by the time it has caught up with the housing allowance.
The Police (Amendment) Regulations were originally laid before the House on 9 March. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) prayed against both the English and Scottish regulations, yet there was no debate. For months a most peculiar silence fell over the Government. Why? It was a bizarre failure of our democratic process to take the necessary step in the implementation of the police regulations. I can assume only that it was because of some internal Government battle about the sum that might be made available as a sweetener to try to rob the debate of some of the bitterness that it has assumed. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is right in believing that some of the sting has gone out of Tory Members. Perhaps they are no longer so angry as they were when the regulations were first announced. The facts have not changed and it is to be hoped that hon. Members on both sides who expressed themselves so strongly earlier will reject the regulations, which do a serious disservice to the policing of the country.
The police are not a militant organisation, but they rely on us in the House to safeguard their interests so that they do not require the protection that others in the public service have enjoyed. If the Home Secretary is saying that there are grave matters of public import that led him to take the decision to set aside the tribunal, he has not spelt them out tonight. He may have said that there were some anomalies, and certainly there were, but that is not a reason for introducing regulations that in themselves are anomalies. They certainly cannot be regarded as being necessitated by reasons of grave national importance, to use the terms of Edmund-Davies.
Although the problems will be felt throughout the country, in urban and peripheral areas, they will undoubtedly be most acutely felt in rural areas, where those who must live in the village police house will not receive the allowance. Those who live in a tied house do not acquire capital in a house of their own. They have the future disadvantage that they will have no rates allowance.
We are not talking about small sums. The Northern constabulary of the Scottish Police Federation has calculated that there is a difference between the maximum old and new allowances of £1,546.25. By any test, that is a significant decrease in take-home pay. I hope that the House will take the only sensible step open to it, and will avoid continuing widespread discontent and dissatisfaction in an already demoralised police force, by voting against the regulations.

Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I want formally to declare that interest.
This debate is not about pay but about the Government's decision to take the unprecedented step of setting aside a decision of the police negotiating board on rent allowances following the recommendation of the police arbitration tribunal.
The people affected by that decision are the men and women who serve the public in the police forces of our country. They do a difficult and dangerous job. They are the men and women in blue who each year sustain serious injuries in the line of duty and who in some cases lose their lives. They are members of a loyal and disciplined force who by law do not have the right to take industrial action.
They expect the Government of the day to abide by negotiations between the official side representatives—the Home Office and local police authorities—and the staff side representing 126,000 police officers. They expect the Government and the Home Secretary of the day to accept the considered verdict of the police arbitration tribunal if there is disagreement during the negotiating process.
They have always believed that the police negotiating board and the police arbitration tribunal were established by Parliament to ensure fair play between the employer and the employee on pay and allowances. But they are not suggesting for a moment that my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland cannot disapprove of an agreement.
I am sorry to tell the House that the beliefs of many police officers have been shattered by the decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary felt obliged to take. That is why the police believe that, to uphold the principles of democracy, they have no alternative but to have their grievances aired on the Floor of the House, where the decision was taken to set up the police negotiating board and police arbitration tribunal.
Their sense of shock has been all the greater because the Home Office, in its own evidence to the Edmund-Davies Committee in 1977, uttered those famous words:
The Secretary of State would never withhold approval save for reasons of grave national importance.
My right hon. and learned Friend has not, so far as I know, given specific reasons of "grave national importance" for his decision, but in his letter that he sent to my hon. Friends last Thursday, he stated that his reasons for setting aside the police negotiating board agreement were that he
could not accept a recommendation which would have meant rent allowances continuing to rise at a rate which bore no relationship to the cost of running a home. And that with pay and allowances taking the lion's share of police budgets, there would have been less and less available for vital expenditure on, for instance, equipment.
Those are not reasons of "grave national importance" of the kind envisaged by the Edmund-Davies Committee. Nor do they appear to take account of the savings made by my right hon. and learned Friend's Department and by police authorities which no longer have to pay rates, water rates and, in rural areas, cesspit charges for thousands of police officers, who since 1 April have had to pay those charges themselves.
I should also like to make it clear that the three small changes to the Police (Amendment) Regulations, made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last Thursday, in answer to a question from me, are outside the police arbitration award that we are debating tonight. They correct technical anomalies which were unfair to the officers concerned. However, I can tell the House quite


unequivocally that those changes are most welcome, and that they are typical of the constant care and courtesy that my right hon. and learned Friend so often demonstrates in his handling of police matters. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will not mind my saying that those changes are not related to the fundamental issues of principle that we are considering.
As the House knows, the relationship between the Government and the police has been good for more than a decade. Therefore, if the Government considered that the arbitration award, which contains a new method of updating rent allowance, and which reflects the need for change, did not sufficiently decrease the bi-annual uprating, at least the mechanism should surely include and reflect the housing index element of the retail prices index, of which only 185 points out of 1,000 bear any relationship to housing costs.
However, my right hon. and learned Friend set that recommendation aside, for the reasons that he gave this evening. In view of that, I hope that the House will bear with me as I explain why so many police officers have been lobbying their Members of Parliament and have attended the House today, and why they are so deeply unhappy about the situation in which they now find themselves. I am afraid that, as the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) well know, it is a complex matter, but I shall attempt to state it as simply and as briefly as possible.
First, it is important to understand exactly what constitutes rent allowance and why it is paid. It is paid to compensate police officers who are not provided with accommodation free of charge as part of their conditions of service. It has been an integral part of police pay since the 1920s. It is also paid in lieu of accommodation, because police officers can be, and are, required by their chief constables to move home to meet operational requirements, and because, in many cases, they have no choice as to where they live.
In the past, the allowance has been uprated every two years, following a review of property values, by an independent valuer. For the sake of administrative convenience, roughly half the police forces in England and Wales, and half the forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland, have received their revaluation in one year, with the revised allowance being paid from the following April. The other forces in England and Wales—about 14—and in Scotland and Northern Ireland, receive their revaluation in the following year, with the revised allowance payable from the following April.
The police arbitration tribunal decided that rent allowance should be abolished for all new entrants to the police, with effect from 1 April 1990, but that it would be retained and protected—or red-circled, as it is known in police jargon—at the existing level for those officers in service before the change took place. It was the intention that in future it would be uprated every two years by the equivalent of the increase in the new force housing allowance, which came into effect on 1 April. Unlike rent allowance, which was geared to property values, the new force housing allowance will in future be related only to the movement in the retail prices index. Twenty-nine forces in England and Wales are frozen at 1988 levels, before red-circling.
Instead of agreeing to a revaluation of the existing rent allowance for the 29 forces in England and Wales alone that last had their force maximum uprated in 1988 before they were protected, my right hon. and learned Friend decided in February that their existing level of rent allowance should be frozen at the 1988 level but that the 14 forces in England and Wales that were uprated in 1989 could retain their rent allowance at the higher 1989 level. That was obviously unfair. It discriminated arbitrarily between different police forces.
As a result of that decision, it was calculated by the Police Federation's advisers, Binder Hamlyn that it would take between 15 and 17 years before the new force housing allowance equalled the existing level of rent allowance, whereas every police officer receiving rent allowance at the protected level naturaly expects it to be increased biennially, as in the past. As a result, most officers will now leave the police before receiving any increase whatsoever in their protected allowance.

Dame Jill Knight: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. What will be the position of police officers who, under the existing arrangements and with a certain understanding about allowances, choose to buy their homes? Do they not have a difficult choice to make?

Mr. Shersby: If they bought their homes before 31 March, they will qualify for the existing level of protected rent allowance. If, however, they were unable to do so—and they did not have very much time in which to do so between my right hon. and learned Friend's statement and the end of March—they will not qualify for the protected rent allowance if they decide to buy their own homes. That is most unfair in the case of the officers in the 29 forces whose rent allowance was to have been protected at the 1988 level.
As a result, representations were made by me, the Police Federation and the staff side of the police negotiating board to my right hon. and learned Friend and Treasury Ministers. After the most careful consideration, my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to uprate those officers in the 29 forces concerned by the movement in the retail prices index between 1988 and 1990. I repeat what I said earlier: that that is what we asked him to do and that is what he did, for which the Police Federation is grateful. The increase is equivalent to 16.6 per cent. for all but five forces, depending on the month in which they were uprated.
The increase is most welcome. I pay warm tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for his unfailing courtesy and consideration and for his recognition of the fact that the original decision that he announced in February was untenable. I am particularly glad that he was able to persuade the Treasury to relent.
The cost of the uprating agreed to by my right hon. and learned Friend was £26.5 million. I think that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will agree that £26.5 million is hardly "rubbish". I understand that that will bring the 29 forces who last had their rent allowance uprated in 1988 to the same level as those that were uprated in 1989 and that it will cost approximately an additional £30 million annually. We referred to a cost of roughly £55 million to bring everyone up to a common starting point. My right hon. and learned Friend has provided £26.5 million.

Mr. Bowen Wells: If my hon. Friend's representations on behalf of the Police Federation have been met by my right hon. and learned Friend and if that was all that the Police Federation wanted, why is it seeking a further concession?

Mr. Shersby: The increase to which my right hon. and learned Friend agreed, welcome though it is, falls far short of the level of rent allowance that is being paid to the 14 forces which had their rent allowances uprated from 1989, and which are protected at that level. Despite my right hon. and learned Friend's welcome movement, thousands of police officers in 29 forces in England and Wales, together with half their colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be receiving hundreds or thousands of pounds less in rent allowances than their colleagues in the 14 forces in England and those in half the forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I shall give the House an example.

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not think for one moment of misleading the House. I am sure that he will agree with me that officers in the 1988 forces are always worse off than their colleagues in 1989 forces. There are plenty of 1988 forces with rent allowances that are higher than those of 1989 forces. For example, under the new arrangements with the retail prices index uprating for two years, £4,270 is paid in Hertfordshire. The sum paid in Leicestershire, which is a 1989 force, is only £3,350. In 1989, Cumbria was uprated to £2,869. There are may 1988 forces that do much better than that. It is rather simplistic to say that all those in 1988 forces have done badly. There are some that have done very well.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to differential housing valuations in different parts of the country. I have a map which illustrates the argument that he is advancing.
I shall give the House an example. Thames Valley police force last had its rent allowance uprated in 1988. It will now receive a 16.6 per cent. increase as a result of the recent uprating. Police officers in that force will be substantially disadvantaged compared with officers living in my constituency of Uxbridge, which is in the Metropolitan police area. The rent allowance in the Sussex force is £3,702, whereas in the Metropolitan police area it is £5,864. That is a difference of £2,162.

Mr. Waddington: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that the Metropolitan police, for obvious reasons, has always had a much higher allowance than those of county forces. Generally speaking, property values are much higher in the Metropolitan police area than elsewhere.

Mr. Shersby: I accept that house prices in London are high. I am talking about rent allowances, which are based on property values, and those values in Sussex are very high. The reaction to the differentials is shown in the number of senior and experienced police officers who are applying to leave their present forces to join the Metropolitan police. That is happening in the Surrey and Sussex forces.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman talks about the difference between the allowance in his constituency, which comes within the Met, and that which is paid in the

Thames Valley police force. Would 40 per cent. be an exaggeration of the difference? If it would not, what is the likely recruitment pattern in the two areas?

Mr. Shersby: I quoted figures to demonstrate the substantial difference between the allowances that are paid in the Thames Valley police force and the Metropolitan police. We shall have to wait and see what effect that has on recruitment in the two areas.

Sir John Wheeler: Until recent times—perhaps this trend is continuing—have riot experienced Metropolitan police officers been moving out of the Metropolitan police area into the areas which are policed by provincial forces?

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend is right. It has been suggested to me in a humorous way that perhaps that is my right hon. and learned Friend's secret weapon, which is designed to boost the recruitment of the Metropolitan police. I am sure that that is not the position.
The income from rent allowances, which, before the arbitration award, officers in some 29 forces in England and Wales had every right to expect, has been denied them. That has serious consequences for many officers who have decided to buy their homes because they are not being provided with accommodation. Moreover, they have done so encouraged by the Government's property-owning philosophy.
Let us take as an example a police officer in his late twenties or early thirties buying a house in greater Birmingham. He has calculated his ability to meet his mortgage repayments on the basis of his expected pay and rent allowance, which has always been an integral part of police remuneration. Now he suddenly finds that the financial goal posts have been moved. His rent allowance in the west midlands force was last uprated in 1988. It will now go up by 16.6 per cent. to £3,399, thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement, but it will still fall short of the rent allowance payable to the adjoining force of Warwickshire by £788 to officers doing the same job and buying a similar house. The same officer has to pay the community charge and water rates, and to cope with the current level of interest rates.
The second major problem concerns officers living in police accommodation. The police negotiating board recommends that the 16,000 or so officers living in provided accommodation should receive a force housing allowance and pay rent. My right hon. and learned Friend made that clear. The police accepted that recommendation, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided to maintain the status quo with officers living in provided accommodation receiving no housing allowance and living rent and rate-free. That includes the payment of water rates, and in country areas cesspit charges.
However, as the House well knows, domestic rates came to an end on 31 March and with effect from 1 April, all police officers in provided accommodation, and their spouses if any, will be worse off in relative terms, by anything between £300 and £1,200 a year, depending on the community charge in the area in which they live, plus water rates and, in country areas, cesspit charges.
The Police Federation accepted that all officers should pay the community charge, but 20 per cent. of the officers in provided accommodation have no choice but to occupy that accommodation. For the first time, they will be


financially penalised for so doing. As a result, a police officer earning £10,000 a year with a spouse and two children living in provided accommodation will suddenly and unexpectedly have to find an additional cash sum for which he or she has not budgeted and which he or she had no reason to think would be payable. In other words, up to 10 per cent. of salary could now have to be paid in local government taxation which had not previously been paid by the police but by their employers, the local police authorities.
Clearly that was unfair, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, in response to representations that were made to him, he introduced the provided accommodation allowance of £300 a year. That is only £255 after tax. I observe in passing that it was fixed when the Government thought that the average community charge might be in the region of £300.
However, it is still an additional expense for officers in police accommodation to meet from their family budgets. It has been sprung on them at rather short notice and represents a major change in their conditions of service. Up and down the country, officers in police accommodation can be worse off by as much as £1,200 a year. That is a recipe for discontent and a source of grievance.
To sum up, there are two serious disagreements which will not be remedied by the regulations if they are passed without amendment tonight—the two different scales of allowance and the substantial additional expenses to officers living in provided accommodation.
Above all, I believe that it was wrong for the Government, who have constantly urged employers and employees to negotiate and to reach agreement on pay and conditions, to overturn the agreement, particularly as they are the employer. I must ask the House, what sort of example is that?
That error of judgment is compounded by the fact that the police do not have the right to take industrial action. They must rely on the process of negotiation and arbitration for the resolution of their pay and conditions. No trade union or self-respecting staff association that has the right to strike would have readily accepted the agreement.
I repeat, and I stress, that I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and his Treasury colleagues for the improvements that he has made since he announced his original decision in February. Moreover, I do not wish him to think that either the Police Federation or I are ungrateful. He might wonder what solution I would have adopted had I had the misfortune to be in his place.

Mr. Richard Tracey: In his summing up, with his deep knowledge of the Police Federation and the personalities involved, will my hon. Friend say whether the leaders of the Police Federation seriously believe that they would be better off under a Labour Home Secretary, given the low police morale under the last Labour Government and the constraints on their economic policy, which the shadow Chancellor keeps spelling out to the country?

Mr. Shersby: As my hon. Friend well knows, the police are non-political; they do not express political views. That is their duty as police officers.
The Government should have implemented the agreement submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend

by the police negotiating board following arbitration. Had they done so, the cash difference between what has now been agreed and what they would have had to pay would be relatively small, particularly if one bears in mind the savings being made by local police authorities, which will not have to pay domestic rates because of the introduction of the community charge.
The fact that that has not happened makes it impossible for me to vote for the regulations. Regretfully, I have no alternative but to vote against them, to show the strength of feeling of the police on the major point of principle—the setting aside of the police negotiating board agreement following arbitration. I have not encouraged my hon. Friends to vote for or against the regulations; nor shall I do so. That is not part of my role as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I know that the concern that I have expressed is well understood by many right hon. and hon. Members, and no doubt they will decide for themselves how to cast their votes in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I first declare an interest? I have recently been appointed parliamentary adviser to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Federation.
The issue that we are debating is one not primarily of detail but of principle. On that basis alone, I intend to question the Government's position. It is imperative that hon. Members who vote, especially Conservative Members, fully understand that they are being called upon to demonstrate the integrity of the House and that no hon. Member is here merely to reflect his or her support of or opposition to Government policy.
At the risk of repeating some of the points to which hon. Members have alluded, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that Lord Edmund-Davies, in his 1978 report, clearly outlined what the powers of the Secretary of State should be in responding to the recommendations of the police arbitration tribunal. He noted the recommendation by all the constituent bodies of the Police Council, except the Home Department, that the findings of a police arbitration tribunal should be binding on all parties including the Secretary of State.
Being assured by the Home Department that the Secretary of State would never withhold approval of a Police Council agreement save for reasons of grave national importance, he conceded that argument in relation to the future arbitration tribunals. In doing so, he took into consideration the fact that should there be any future failure to agree or a pay award or any breakdown of the negotiating machinery, the Government would need the power to make regulations on pay matters for the police, whose efficiency was essential to the maintenance of law and order. Lord Edmund-Davies was influenced also by the unique role of the police and the ultimate responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the maintenance of the Queen's peace. Specifically, on that clearly defined basis, he expressed himself content that discretionary powers would not be used or abused.
In paragraph 117 of chapter 10, Lord Edmund-Davies states:
We would, however, like to place on record our view that any award by the Police Arbitration Tribunal should be set aside only for reasons of the utmost national importance.
Could anything be more unequivocal or binding as a matter of honour? In fact, the Secretaries of State have


infringed that stipulation by Lord Edmund-Davies and have abrogated the spirit of the arrangement that has commanded the respect of the police for the past 11 or 12 years. What is the matter of grave national importance that requires the Government to act less honourably today than they did in 1984, when the same issue was referred to arbitration and the Government were then able to accept the tribunal's decision?
It is important that we remember that it is as part of police pay and conditions that police officers, where they cannot be provided with police accommodation, have been granted a rent allowance. Although that rent allowance may be a separate payment calculated through an independent process, none the less it is an integral part of the totality of police remuneration, and was recognised as such by Lord Edmund-Davies. At a time when our police forces have to endure increasing pressures, in terms of public scrutiny and through the advent of more sophisticated and better organised violence, is it not ironic that this Government—the so-called Government of law and order—should unilaterally undermine the confidence of those who serve the community at the coal face?
I cannot help but reflect on the flattering words that are used by the Prime Minister and her Ministers to describe the job that policemen and policewomen do, often under the most trying conditions, but it seems that talk is always cheap. When the community needs protection for whatever reason and whenever Government policies have brought angry, unruly and often violent mobs on to our streets, it is not the Secretaries of State who bear the brunt of that disorder. Are memories so short that the Government cannot remember the poll tax riots, the tragedy of Broadwater Farm or the ongoing courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary over the past 20 years?
When Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State, Home Office, wrote in The House Magazine on 12 February, he admitted that there was absolutely no precedent for the Minister to reject the findings of an arbitration tribunal. He then asserted that this did not signal a change in negotiating arrangements or in the access to arbitration which is provided for in those arrangements. Does he expect a single officer to believe such illogical nonsense? Does he expect hon. Members to do so?
The noble Lord then asserts that there is no question of anyone having money taken out of his present earnings as a result of the decision of the Home Secretary. What is the guarantee for the future? Can we have a similar assurance on that point? The Government have advanced a series of arguments as to why awards should not be agreed in full, and why the Home Secretary should select what someone called the plums within the arbitration award and leave the police with the duff. They have sought to confuse the issue by relating rent allowance to police pay.
We have heard quoted how much better the police have done vis-à-vis the average worker in terms of increases. We all thought that that was because the Government recognise that the police do not do a normal job but a special one and that they are conscious of the danger to life and limb that the police encounter every day. We thought that they appreciated that the police do not enjoy the protection of the health and safety agencies and we are denied the right of industrial action to defend conditions of service or to pursue legitimate grievances. That is obviously not the case.
The Government of law and order clearly show that they value saving to the public exchequer more than they

value the good will of the police service. They are callously prepared to sacrifice the basis of trust and faith that has been built up over the past 11 years.
To the shame of the Government, I shall quote from the last paragraph of the final report of the tribunal in November 1989:
We have felt it necessary to set out these principles at some length for two reasons. There is a natural tendency for each side to cling to familiar aspects of the older arrangements that they feel advantageous, without weighing the compensatory gains. But most important is the fact that any inclination to pick and choose"—
as the Home Secretary has done—
between the individual changes that we have suggested is likely to destroy, to the advantage of one side or the other, the fairness of the solution we have proposed, which we believe takes account of the need not to add to the expense of the police service and is based on clear and sensible principles.
Both sides of the police negotiating board have accepted and adhered to those principles. But the Government, who were represented on the official side, have chosen to ignore sound advice and the principles that are involved.
If the House is to be the final arbiter and the protector of rights and principles it must vote against any revocation of the criteria laid down by Lord Edmund-Davies for resolving matters pertaining to police pay and allowances. Anything less is a betrayal and must inevitably have the direst short, medium and long-term consequences for policing in the United Kingdom.

Sir John Wheeler: I could scarcely believe my ears as I listened to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which must count as one of the most cynical and outrageous pieces of opportunism to have been heard in the House for many a long year. Members of the British police service who are well accustomed to dealing with the overwhelming amount of crime that is opportunistic will fully understand what I mean when I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in that way.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made several significant spending commitments for the Opposition. All Conservative Members look forward to seeing those spending commitments set out clearly with sums attached so that we may gain a greater understanding of what the tax burden would be were the Labour party, in the unlikely event, to form the Government after the next general election.
During his speech to the Police Federation's conference a short while ago, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook appeared to make yet another spending commitment, If it understood him correctly, he undertook to establish a third police force that would be responsible for investigating complaints. Complaints investigations would no longer be supervised by the independent Police Complaints Authority. According to my reckoning, that would cost between £10 million and £15 million. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to confer with his colleagues responsible for the Labour party's financial policies, to put figures to those commitments.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler: No, I have only just started. I hope that the hon. Lady will allow me to proceed.
I want now to consider the Government's record as that is more relevant to the regulations that we are discussing. Under this Government the police service, as every officer knows, has received steady and what I believe the vast majority of British people would agree are fair increases in pay. Within a week of coming to office in 1979, the Government implemented the Edmund-Davies pay formula in full. Since then the Government have stuck to that pay formula. Since May 1979, basic pay has increased by more than 41 per cent. in real terms. I am delighted that the Government have reaffirmed their steadfast commitment to that pay formula and I contrast that with the condition that the police service was in when we came to office in 1979.
It might be helpful if I were to give some figures to show the pay with which we have rewarded our police officers. The figures to which I shall refer to Metropolitan police officers, as that is the force with which I am principally concerned as the Member for Westminster, North.
A police constable in the Met with 15 years' service or more enjoys a maximum salary of £16,521 to which there is added London weighting of £1,089 and a special London allowance of £1,011, making a total of £18,621. A constable—a new recruit—aged 22 years or over will enjoy £14,562 while a sergeant with four years' service and on top scale will receive £20,229. An inspector with four years' service, on the top scale, will receive £23,850. A married constable—as of April 1989—could receive a rent allowance amounting to £7,329, while an unmarried constable under 30 could receive a maximum of £3,665. That will give the House an idea of the extent of the pay and rent allowances that the police will receive from the Government.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir John Wheeler: I am being assailed by more than one hon. Member, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government's treatment of the police force has been generous, and I am sure that that is recognised; but will he deal with a question to which I have yet to receive an answer? I live in Warwickshire, but my constituency is in Northamptonshire. Housing costs in Warwickshire are lower than those in Northamptonshire, yet the police rent allowance in Warwickshire is higher than that in Northamptonshire. Why?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking such an interesting question. Were we to have the luxury of sitting late into the night, I am sure that we could contemplate the possible answers in great detail. However, I propose to allow that interesting point to lie "upon the Table" for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to pick up.

Mr. Waddington: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing is certain—that the difference referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) results not from any assessment made by the Home Office, but from an assessment made by the local

district valuer? There is no Machiavelli behind the decision; it just happens that the valuation of a typical police house in one area is not the same as the valuation of a typical police house in another area.

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The way in which the rent allowance formula is applied varies from constabulary to constabulary. After all, we have 52 of them—and, as some hon. Members may know, if the matter were left to me, the arrangements would be considerably rationalised. I hope and pray that we shall work towards that in the near future, when our problems may well be resolved through the process of negotiation.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking of bringing to the police service the expertise that has been demonstrated by the prison service? Police officers are now having to look after many people in the cells.

Sir John Wheeler: Surely the hon. Lady knows the answer to that question.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to forget the extent of Government funding during the past 11 years—not only of police pay, although I welcome that, but of the service as a whole. Since 1979, there has been an increase of nearly 59 per cent. in total expenditure on the police service. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the average increase in allowances last year topped 42 per cent., while the allowance to the Metropolitan police rose by more than 57 per cent. The allowance in Warwickshire rose by 67 per cent. Those rises bear no relation to the true rise in living costs. Generous as the Government rightly are to the police, the Police Federation and police officers—men and women of common sense—will understand that there are limits to the amount of money that can be put into rent allowances, which my right hon. and learned Friend has a duty to consider and make a judgment upon, as he is doing tonight.

Mr. Wells: Was not it entirely predictable, given the formula that we agreed under Edmund-Davies, that such increases would take place, bearing in mind property prices, particularly in the home counties and in London? Therefore, if we want to change the arrangements, surely the Home Office should have approached the police and the Police Federation in 1986, 1987 or 1988. It is no good complaining that rent allowances have increased in accordance with the formula subsequent to those events. Surely it is no justification to object to the increases in those years and then to refuse to pay them in the next year and thus disadvantage many police forces.

Sir John Wheeler: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an immensely complicated subject. I agree also that it is not possible to find an easy solution. However, I remind my hon. Friend that negotiations commenced in 1988 and have been going on for quite some time. It is a matter of regret, but my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues in the Government have had to reject the recommendation of the police negotiating board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the additional funding that my right hon. and learned Friend had obtained—about £26 million—to try to ease the path of this arrangement. I for one was greatly struck by his remarks in the journal Police, the magazine of the Police Federation, a few weeks ago. He wrote that one of the most difficult tasks that he had to


perform on behalf of the Police Federation was to participate in the discussions that he honourably carried out with my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue. In the magazine he referred to
the new Provided Accommodation Allowance' of £300 a year for three years and to an uprating by the movement in the retail price index (RPI) between 1988 and 1990 for the 29 Forces concerned. This is worth 13.7 per cent. While these decisions are very welcome and helpful they obviously do not meet the full expectations of officers throughout the country who had expected the agreement reached by the PNB to be endorsed and implemented.
My hon. Friend implied that he had found a fair balance between the interests of the federation and the Government's position.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the arithmetic behind the issue may be complex, the principle behind it is terribly simple? In a nutshell, it is that an arrangement that has worked very well for 10 years is now being unilaterally abandoned because it appears to be working to the disadvantage of the Government.

Sir John Wheeler: That is the difficulty of being the Government. [Interruption.] There is mirth on the Opposition Benches, for the quite obvious reason that the Opposition will never he in government. They will never need to make difficult decisions about the use of taxpayers' money. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has had to do. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was right to say that there is a problem, but that is why the Government must form a view and suggest what decision should be taken by the House.
The figures that I have given tonight and the costs that have arisen in some parts of the country have been so high that the Government have a duty to consider where the emphasis should be placed in public expenditure. It is for that reason that I shall support my right hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary is good at correcting his parliamentary colleagues if they fall into error. I hope that he will interrupt and correct me if I am wrong when I ask him three questions. How much money will the Government save by the set-aside of the arbitration award? More precisely, what would have been the total cost of the scheme if they had gone along with the arbitration award and what will the present scheme cost?
I realise that there may be difficulties with the notional valuation of housing. If I asserted that the savings will be between £80 million and £100 million, would I be wrong? The Home Secretary and his advisers must have some sort of figure.

Mr. Waddington: I think that it is less than that for the first year, but that is not the point. I cannot begin to calculate what the additional cost would be, year on year on year, if we were to go down the path recommended by the police negotiating board. I believe that the initial saving will be more like £50 million than £80 million or £100 million, but it is still quite a lot of money. It is £50 million that comes out of total police provision, and therefore means less money to be spent on equipment and so on.

Mr. Dalyell: Many policemen will think that they are being done out of £50 million-plus—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us what he really thinks about it.

Mr. Waddington: I made a long speech saying what I thought about it. I said that there had been enormous increases in rent allowances. I quoted the two instances of a 59 per cent. increase in the Metropolitan police rent allowances last year and a 67 per cent. increase in the Warwickshire police rent allowance. I do not think that it is unfair to red-circle officers so that those serving before 31 March lose nothing in cash, but we end the system of bizarre increases that bear no relationship to the true increase in the cost of running a house.

Mr. Dalyell: Many of our police constituents will say that that is all very well, but in scarcely any other job, in anything like the same way, are people ordered to change house at short notice. That point was made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I want a detailed reply to be made to the Police Federation grievance.
You asked for short speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a Scottish point—the question of community police officers in rural areas. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) knows the problem in many parts of Scotland. People must live in police houses, to which are attached police officers, so that they can do their job. They will not receive the allowance. They have a much more limited temporary arrangement. By accepting the requirement and living in tied accommodation, they put themselves at a disadvantage anyway because they are not acquiring capital in a house of their own. They are to be subject to a further disadvantage in that they will have no rate allowance now that the poll tax has replaced the rates. Those officers are almost invariably married because it is normally regarded as essential to have a married man in such a post.
That is a genuine problem in many parts of Scotland. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will agree that as we Scots are a year more advanced with the poll tax than people in England, extra urgency is added to the problem.
Finally, the Scottish Office brief states that the Secretary of State
noted that as a direct result of the draft regulations, over 80 per cent. of Scottish Police officers receiving rent allowance would now receive lump-sum back-dated payments to reflect the outcome of the reviews which his decision would make possible. He further noted that these lump-sum back-dated payments would be in addition to the back-dated payments Scottish officers had received a month or so ago when the rates element of rent allowance had been restored to Scottish officers.
What advice has the Home Secretary received from his Scottish Office colleagues on the adequacy or otherwise of the lump-sum payments, because there have been some pretty bitter complaints about their size?
Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall leave it at that.

Sir Bernard Braine: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I must declare an interest. For the past quarter of a century, I have advised the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. If I have not spoken in recent years in the House on police matters, that has been largely because, since the


advent of the present Government and the Edmund-Davies award, the police have been treated fairly. That was their view and the view of the Police Superintendents Association until my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to set aside the recommendation of the police negotiating board on housing rent allowance. I am saddened by that and must report that I have received more angry letters from police officers since that decision was made public than in all my 40 years in the House. I know that I share that experience with many right hon. and hon. Members.
In defence of all this, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) says that the police are well paid. The view of the Police Superintendents Association, the rank and file of the police service and, I should have thought, most people in this country is that the police deserve to be well paid. After all, they are paid what Edmund-Davies recommended. Broadly speaking, they have preserved what they gained then, but we should not underestimate their feeling that they have now been sadly let down.
It is true that before 1979 police morale was very low, but that has not been so in recent years. However, since 1979 crime has increased by more than one third; the police work load has increased substantially and its scope has been widened by legislation passed by the House. Every aspect of police work has increased during that time. We have seen the emergence of lager louts, acid house parties, public order problems and racial tensions. The number of people arrested and prosecuted has substantially increased. In addition, the police have been expecred to safeguard public services in disputes. I refer to what happened in the miners' strike and in the ambulance and fire brigade disputes. Huge new burdens have been placed on the police in recent years.
A price must be paid for these extra burdens and risks. The reports of the police convalescent homes in Goring and Harrogate reveal the increased risk. Goring is new but needs to be extended, and Harrogate was extended but needs to be extended further to cope with the increasing flow of officers injured while protecting the public.
Last year, sickness caused by violent assaults on officers outside the London area alone equalled about 190 years. The biggest factors are stress and incidents leading to injuries, all of which can have a lasting effect on officers and their families. None of that has yet been properly assessed.
Today the police service faces increasing criticism, yet never have the education and professionalism of officers been higher. They are necessary because the nature of society is changing, in some respects for the worse. Assaults on children and young people, domestic violence, football violence and racial tension have increased in the past 10 years, involving the police in an increasingly complex world of multi-agency approaches, case conferences, studies and detailed specialism.
It follows that in a period of increasing work, public pressure and risk, the police are entitled to ask to be fairly treated. After all, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, they are forbidden by law on pain of imprisonment from taking industrial action. After the bitter disputes of the 1970s, the

Edmund-Davies inquiry set up the police negotiating board as a means of providing a fair way to resolve pay and allowances.
It is true that Edmund-Davies's awards are not set in tablets of stone for ever, but the police are entitled to ask that those who seek to make material changes in police remuneration should place their arguments before independent arbitration and, subject to national emergencies, accept the result of that arbitration.
In this instance, the arbitration award, made by responsible and credible people, did not wholly favour the police. They set out the position clearly in their report:
We have felt it necessary to set out these principles at some length for two reasons. There is a tendency for each side to cling to familiar aspects of the older arrangements that they feel advantageous without weighing the compensatory gains. But most important is the fact that any inclination to pick and choose between the individual changes that we have suggested is likely to destroy, to the advantage of one side or the other, the fairness of the solution…which we believe takes account of the need not to add to the expense of the police service and is based on clear and sensible principles.
The arbitration award in itself and the police negotiating board agreement which followed made substantial savings in the police budget. The Home Office was not satisfied with that, so went much further and set aside many important provisions in the agreement which, I am advised, detracted from the fairness of the award. The police budget had been reduced by several millions, but as a result the excellent relationship built up between the staff association and the Home Office since the Edmund-Davies inquiry was undermined.
The real issue that we are debating, however, is not one of saving money, but the unfair way in which the Home Secretary's discretion has been used to overturn an agreement of the PNB, ignoring the special machinery set up precisely because the police are debarred from taking industrial action. I am worried at the way in which this decision ignores the implications for the future. I refer specifically to the police superintendents, who are the senior officers in the field responsible for the discipline and morale of other ranks. They are filled with concern that there are now fewer superintendents, who are the salt of the earth, confronted by increasing problems and a much higher work load.
Before Edmund-Davies, the police service as a whole, was unhappy. I have a vivid recollection of that unhappiness. Since Edmund-Davies, police superintendents have been busy seeking to improve service to the public and standards of education and professionalism. They are not primarily concerned with money, and acknowledge that the Home Office has, in the short term, preserved the remuneration of long-serving officers approaching retirement. They are concerned not about themselves but about the future of the service and the confidence that it has in its negotiating machinery.
That is why police superintendents are unhappy at the way in which arbitration has been treated. They fully accept that in times of grave national importance the service must take second place. But the public, and bodies such as the Association of County Councils and the police negotiating board have the right to ask what reasons of "grave national importance" arise in this case. If none exists and the Home Office is simply unhappy about part of an uprating system, in my view and that of police


superintendents it should have dealt with the matter fairly and constitutionally, by referring it back to the police negotiating board.
I do not deny that concessions were made as a consequence of the approach by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the Police Federation, but I am unhappy at the way that the issue has been handled since. I am uneasy therefore about the future of the police service in the present social climate, and suggest that the House should be, too. It is a serious matter to overturn an arbitration award, and I do not think that in this case it was justified. Therefore, I am in full sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and find that I cannot go into the Lobby in support of the Government.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the few moments left before the closing speeches from both Front Benches, I will not rehearse the technical arguments that have been made in this interesting debate. I speak on behalf not only of the Scottish National party but also of Plaid Cymru, which are united on this issue and speak with one voice in expressing a view that they share. A matter of principle is at stake, and Conservative Members have clearly expressed their dissent, as have right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House.
When the Home Secretary addressed the Police Federation conference in Scarborough and made it clear that he did not intend to change the regulations, he expressed his hope that, after this debate,
we'll draw a line under it and move on to other things.
The Home Secretary cannot dismiss so easily the events of the past months. A line cannot be drawn under such a major issue. It is not a matter of wiping the slate clean just like that. The Home Office handling of the matter has done great damage to the morale, commitment and confidence of police forces the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
The police representatives negotiated in good faith for many months, believing that the principles enshrined in the Edmund-Davies package would be upheld and honoured. What has been appalling is that Ministers, who asked that trade unionists observe democratically agreed procedures in negotiations and arbitration, throw those procedures out of the window when it suits them. It was clear from the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) that he did not think that this issue involves principle. I believe that he demonstrated the Government's lack of principle on the issue and he showed that the dead hand of the Treasury is steering through these regulations.
What has happened is wrong in principle and outrageous in practice. We have still not heard a clear answer about the grave national importance that has led the Government to alter their view of the arbitration tribunal.
We seem to expect our police officers to observe matters of national importance in the course of their lives. The men and women of the Scottish police force trawled the hills and fields around Lockerbie after the air disaster. They are the men and women who have to deal with drug addicts and criminals in our society. We expect them to turn out on matters of national importance. No doubt many of them are working tonight, not far from here, on the explosion in London. If they observe national importance,

surely they deserve respect and honour from the Government, who should observe the regulations as they were first agreed.
These events have ridiculed the staff side negotiations, have treated the negotiation machinery with contempt, have ignored Lord Edmund-Davies and Professor Sir John Wood, and have demoralised police forces. That is a terrible indictment of the Government's attitude to men and women who deserve our respect.

Mr. John Greenway: Rather uniquely, I have experienced police matters at first hand at three different levels. As the House knows, I served as a police officer in the west end of London. I have also served as a police authority vice-chairman and here in Parliament as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, when there is an opportunity to study policing matters in considerable detail.
I am sure that the House will accept that that allows me to consider the issue that we are debating tonight from three distinctive perspectives. How do the police see the new regulations? Understandably, they are upset and deeply angry at the Home Secretary's decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) articulated that anger in his speech. However, I ask police officers to accept that many Conservative Members supported the representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made to the Home Secretary, and that we were glad about the improvements that my right hon. and learned Friend made. I take the view that he has gone as far as he can to satisfy policemen and women on the matter.
The five years that I served as a policeman in London coincided with the Labour Government of 1964–70. Morale was not good. I was partly attracted by pay levels into the police force in 1965, and it seemed to me that those levels had been eroded by the time I left in 1970. My most vivid recollection was the lack of support that we police officers felt we had in the aftermath of the two Grosvenor square riots, outside the American embassy, in 1967 and 1968. That is all history, but it provides an insight into how police officers feel when there is a Grunwick, a miner's strike, a Wapping, or a Trafalgar square. I think that all serving policemen know that the Government have sincerely supported their efforts in the public disturbances that have taken place in recent years.
Happily, my experience as vice-chairman of the North Yorkshire police authority is much more recent, and I have discussed the issue at length with my chief constable and my chairman. They expressed three major concerns: morale, mobility and finance. Morale was boosted recently by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when he was Home Secretary to appoint an extra 40 police officers over two years. We asked for 50 in North Yorkshire. We did very well to get an additional 40. It boosted morale.
Morale has been adversely affected by the decision on housing allowance. It would be wrong to suggest otherwise. We must be careful to stress the clear Government commitment to honour Edmund-Davies on pay. The Government's support for the police speaks for itself.

Mr. Allason: When my hon. Friend met the chief constable, did the chief constable reflect the views of Mr.


James Anderton, who pointed out that the tribunal reached its conclusions on 18 December 1989, that the Home Office received the recommendations on 21 December 1989 and that the Home Office managed, in record time, by 4 January 1990, to produce 20 pages of draft regulations? The view of many chief police officers is that, far from honouring the Edmund-Davies formula, the Home Office set out from the beginning deliberately to delay implementation of the arbitration recommendation and had no intention of agreeing to it.

Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his intervention. I cannot answer the point. The chief constable did not articulate that to me, but he did articulate other matters that I am about to address.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to recognise the problem of mobility in rural police forces. In North Yorkshire we require all new recruits to serve for the first seven years in a rural beat house. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend is right to reject the payment of an allowance and the payment of rent. It would lead to all sorts of difficulties. However, in due course we should like those officers to move out of that accommodation and to buy their own home. Thereafter, the housing allowance must be adequate to allow recruits to do that. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep an open mind as to future needs.
My chief constable and chairman also discussed finance. It is a concern that manpower costs represent such a large slice of the police budget—at present 80 per cent. Community charge payers have to meet 30 per cent., whatever the police bill may be. Members of police authorities, who are also county councillors, have responsibility for other priorities: education, teachers' pay, and social services, which all place heavy demands on resources, too. The debate would not be about housing allowances if police authorities had the opportunity to choose the issue. Instead it might be about capital spending plans. We cannot ignore the urgent need to make a thorough reappraisal of police buildings and accommodation, including the fabric of many police houses, training facilities, the need for new computer technology and communications equipment.
That leads to my experience of the current work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. All our inquiries point one way. For 11 years the Government have given top priority—rightly, in my view—to the recruitment and pay of our police officers. The priority now must be to give that manpower the tools with which to do the job. My right hon. and learned Friend supports that view. It was his recognition of the need to reorder priorities that led him to take this difficult decision. It is no more easy for Conservative Members who support the police to support that difficult decision, but I do so in recognition of three facts.
First, we have the best-paid police force in Europe. We now want to have the best-equipped police force in Europe. The Government have the responsibility for ensuring that proper priority is given to all the needs of the police service. This decision I take to be part of that process. Secondly, I invite the police to see the Opposition motions for what they are: cynical opportunism.
Thirdly, and above all, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I recognise that although a decision has been taken

that has damaged the relationship between the Conservative party and the police service, the Conservative Government have given the police every support over the past 11 years. We now ask the police service to support us, to understand why the decision was taken, to understand what is being done, to understand that the Edmund-Davies pay commitment will continue to be honoured and to understand that a highly motivated, well-trained and properly equipped force must be, and will continue to be, a high priority for this and the next Conservative Government.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We have been dealing with what could fairly be described as a matter of byzantine details. We have been faced with a complex mass of convention and precedent. We have a system which no one would have designed and which has grown over the years. It has had the great virtues of maintaining the confidence of the police force and offering stability. It is, above all, a system that has worked.
The system has been the subject of a major review. A series of difficulties have been compounded, as in so many other areas of our life, by the introduction of the poll tax. If there is one thing on which there is unanimity in the House, it is that the police are unhappy. There is common ground between those who are unfavourably disposed to the actions of the Home Secretary and those who are bravely supporting him because of party loyalty.
The House will not be surprised to know that in Scotland, as elsewhere, the unhappiness of the police is directly reflected. The reasons for the unhappiness have been made clear during the debate. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who declared his special interest, carefully documented the reasons for the unhappiness. There were moments when perhaps he documented it too carefully, but I take the points he made and recognise their substance. Undoubtedly anomalies are appearing in the system as a result of the repudiation of the arbitration award, and these will cause much bitterness and unhappiness.
The Home Secretary sounded peculiarly unhappy and unconvincing when dealing with the problems of the Housing allowance and the anomalies between different forces. Comparisons have been made between those which uprated in 1988 and those which did so in 1989. The right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened more than once to tell us that inevitably there were differences, and that those differences have always existed because housing circumstances varied throughout the country. That is true, but differences are now being introduced that are the result of a different method of calculation. That will lead to great unhappiness and deep resentment.
That point was made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) when he expressed his worry about the contrast between Dorset and Hampshire. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) talked about the impact on the force in the country of which he represents part and the number of police officers who are trying to transfer to other forces. Despite the interim or halfway stage that the Home Secretary produced under pressure, there remains a major anomaly. That is the difference between £26.5 million and £55 million, the first


sum being the cost of the present scheme and protection and the second figure being the cost of eliminating all the anomalies that have been created.
We must recognise the problem faced by police officers who are buying their own homes. We are told that the rent allowance will be uprated by 16 per cent. over two years, but there was plenty of testimony by Conservative Members to the unhappiness that exists and the substantial differentials that will continue to prevail.
We have heard about the red-circling of rent allowances and mark-time protected incomes under the new system. These devices will not solve the problems or take the edge off the discontent. In a different context, and perhaps at a different financial level, I think of the last occasion when I, as a constituency Member, had to deal with a large number of people who had mark-time protected incomes. These people had been on supplementary benefit and they found themselves with a protected level of benefit as they faced transition to income support. In the first year of transition, many of them said that it was fine. They did not notice any difference. The noticed a difference in the next year and the following year when upratings were introduced and they realised that they would not get a penny piece. The new system bit, and it bit hard. That will be the impact and the effect on the police force in years ahead.
I had the impression that even those Conservative Members who were trying to be loyal were distinctly nervous about the prospects. I respect the special authority of the speech by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). He was not representing a particular interest but has served as a police officer. He was particularly unhappy about what he recognised as the damage that was being done to the relationship between the Government of the day and the police force. I do not like that happening. I do not worry so much about relationships within the Tory party, but I accept that there is a problem when the police force loses confidence, in the government of the day, or that confidence is damaged. That is bad for morale, which should concern us all.
The hon. Gentleman argued that police officers were angry, but he went on to say that the Government had done everything they reasonably could, leaving us with the implication that the anger was therefore unreasonable. I do not believe that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Gentleman believes that, or that any of his former colleagues in the force would feel that they were being unreasonable, even after listening to his arguments.
The anger has been compounded by a sense of outrage over a breach of principle. The arbitration award has been overturned, according to the Secretary of State for Scotland's correspondence with me a month or two ago, "after careful consideration". He told us that it was not done lightly. That is a doubtful plea in mitigation. It suggests that the Secretary of State knew what he was about; it was a premeditated act committed with malice aforethought.
Some of his arguments appear deplorably lightweight. His letter to me dated 12 February displays a curious air of unreality. For example, he made the point that those who live in police authority housing would have had to pay rent and that the rent might have been higher than the allowances. That may be so, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, quaintly in view of all the Government's rhetoric over the past few years, that if they paid rent they would have a right to buy and that would

be unthinkable because it would have adverse operational consequences for housing stock. Having been deaved by the Secretary of State for Scotland for some five years about the essential virtues of selling off every piece of public sector housing stock that could possibly be put on the market, that seems to me to be a perverse argument.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then discussed what index should be used to calculate the housing allowance. I understand that, if one uses capital values and the housing element in the retail prices index, one may end up with a significantly higher figure, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, that was carefully considered by the arbitration machinery, which concluded that it was right to do so. I find it remarkable that the Secretary of State for Scotland should lecture me on the fact that the RPI includes mortgage costs and therefore is suitable. I hope that he will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and persuade him that mortgage costs should remain within the RPI.
However, my central objection concerns the nature of the arbitration. Arbitration is effective and carries long-term confidence only if it is binding on both sides. It does not need to be formally and legally binding, but it has to be an undertaking of honour and an agreement by which both sides will stand if it is to mean anything.
No doubt Mr. Justice Edmund-Davies produced a much-admired and extremely useful report, but in some ways he was lamentably naive. He said that there was no need to make it legally binding because the actions of the Secretary of State were accountable to Parliament, so no further control was necessary. I do not know whether he envisaged that we would be debating these matters at 1 o'clock in the morning with no chance to amend or debate them in any detail or principle. He went on to give that famous pledge that in his view arbitration should be overruled
only for reasons of the utmost national importance".
The outstanding feature of the debate was that the Secretary of State argued good housekeeping, pleaded poverty and argued about the common sense and the nuts and bolts of a complicated system, but he made no attempt to argue that, in his decision, there were reasons of the utmost national importance. He might have said that he had to overrule arbitration because the general mismanagement of the economy made it impossible to afford the arbitration award, but for some reason he did not advance perhaps his most plausible argument.
The truth is that he is embarked on a course of action that will damage police morale, at a time when we wish to improve and not to undermine it. Having failed to win the argument in the police negotiating board and having faild to carry the police arbitration tribunal, he has decided to take the law into his own hands. I am not trying to argue—I repeat the distinction made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is illegal, but I repeat that it is an act of doubtful morality, given the expectation arid relationship of trust that has marked the machinery set up by Mr. Justice Edmund-Davies over the past 11 years.
The Secretary of State said that that argument was the usual waffle and that it was complete balderdash. But then he rather betrayed himself, because he said that it was all a matter of honour. It is a matter of honour, nothing to do with waffle, balderdash or illegality. Against that test, the


right hon. and learned Gentleman fails. In the end, sadly for him, "the utmost national importance" has been equated with the convenience of the Treasury.

Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, I should make a few points.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that I was wrong because our decision was all about money. In part, he was right. It was essential that the Government chould consider the wider economic interests, because more in rent allowance inevitably means less on other police services. Every hon. Member knows perfectly well that representations are being made even now that there is not enough money for all the other expenses of running a police force, such as vehicles, equipment or machinery.
It is not a serious indictment of the Government that we were concerned with the cost of the proposals put before us by the police negotiating board. It would have been thoroughly irresponsible if we had allowed such massive increases in rent allowance. In the first year, the amount involved may be described as relatively modest, but I cannot believe that any hon. Member believes that if the system as recommended by the police negotiating board had been put in place large sums of money would not have been involved over a period of years.
Therefore, it was important that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should have made it abundantly plain that the Opposition are pledged to an increase in rent allowances, which would deprive police forces of substantial sums that undoubtedly are needed for other purposes. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not intend to spend those funds on rent allowances when they could be used on other police services, the indictment against the right hon. Gentleman is all the more forceful. He is committing the Labour party to considerable extra public expenditure, but we have yet to hear where the money will be found.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was more than generous, and I am grateful to him. It is right that we had amicable discussions about how best to resolve the differences between the Government and the Police Federation. My hon. Friend acknowledged, fairly, that the Government were not unyielding and that, in two respects, we had listened to the representations of the Police Federation, heeded its comments and acted accordingly. I do not think that many people would seriously believe that we had not made a big move to get rid of the feeling of unfairness about officers who belong to forces that are uprated in even years compared with officers in forces that are uprated in odd years.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). The Government have made their commitment to the Edmund-Davies report, but there is criticism about capital spending plans in police forces. We must heed that argument and do our best to meet the representations made to us. The more we refuse to grasp this nettle, when housing allowances have run completely out of control, the less chance we have of meeting the serious objections that have been made to us on an entirely different front.
I do not understand the Opposition's point. They laughed when we said that if we had observed the recommendation of the police negotiating board, those who rented houses would have had the right to buy. They seem to suggest that they would have been happy for that to happen. I cannot understand it. If they think that the—

It being three hours after proceedings on the motion had been entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to the Order [22 June].

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

Division No. 262]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baldry, Tony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hague, William


Body, Sir Richard
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hill, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brazier, Julian
Holt, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Janman, Tim


Cash, William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Kennedy, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kirkwood, Archy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Cran, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Curry, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Malins, Humfrey


Evennett, David
Mans, Keith


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Maples, John


Fearn, Ronald
Marlow, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Monro, Sir Hector


Franks, Cecil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Freeman, Roger
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Gardiner, George
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony





Nicholls, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Norris, Steve
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Page, Richard
Stokes, Sir John


Paice, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Patnick, Irvine
Sumberg, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wallace, James


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Ward, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Derek Conway and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Edward Leigh.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Alexander, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Allen, Graham
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Alton, David
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
George, Bruce


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caborn, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carr, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Haynes, Frank


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clay, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Donald
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cryer, Bob
Janner, Greville


Cummings, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lamond, James


Dewar, Donald
Latham, Michael


Dixon, Don
Leadbitter, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Douglas, Dick
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)






Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Reid, Dr John


McAvoy, Thomas
Richardson, Jo


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michael, Alun
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Morgan, Rhodri
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N.


Nellist, Dave
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. George Buckley and


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Division No. 263]
[1.1 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fearn, Ronald


Allason, Rupert
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Allen, Graham
Fisher, Mark


Alton, David
Flannery, Martin


Anderson, Donald
Flynn, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Derek


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Galloway, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gould, Bryan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blair, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bradley, Keith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Henderson, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hinchliffe, David


Buckley, George J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hoyle, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Carr, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Illsley, Eric


Clay, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Coleman, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kennedy, Charles


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kilfedder, James


Corbett, Robin
Kirkwood, Archy


Cousins, Jim
Lambie, David


Cox, Tom
Lamond, James


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted


Cummings, John
Leighton, Ron


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cunningham, Dr John
Lewis, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Darling, Alistair
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAllion, John


Dewar, Donald
McAvoy, Thomas


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Maginnis, Ken


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John






Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Shersby, Michael


Maxton, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Trimble, David


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis


Nellist, Dave
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Prescott, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Richardson, Jo



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Sheerman, Barry





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Curry, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evennett, David


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Bright, Graham
Favell, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Fookes, Dame Janet


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus


Cash, William
Franks, Cecil





Freeman, Roger
Maples, John


French, Douglas
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorst, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Gow, Ian
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Miscampbell, Norman


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Ground, Patrick
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hague, William
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Jeremy
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steve


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Paice, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Powell, William (Corby)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Riddick, Graham


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shelton, Sir William


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Madel, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)






Squire, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Steen, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stern, Michael
Walden, George


Stevens, Lewis
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stokes, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thornton, Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tracey, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tredinnick, David



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Alastair Goodlad, and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Question accordingly negatived.

CONTRACTS (APPLICABLE LAW) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) ( Second Reading Committees),
That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With permission, I will put together the two motions relating to European Community documents.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committee on European Community documents).

ORGANIC FOOD

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10499/89, relating to the production and labelling of organic food; and supports the Government's aim of negotiating changes which take proper account of United Kingdom standards and practice in the production, certification and labelling of such food.

POULTRYMEAT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10438/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 7th March 1990, relating to marketing standards for poultrymeat; and supports the Government's aim of negotiating measures that take account of the interests of consumers and poultry producers in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

Post Office

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. John Marshall: Since my success in the ballot, my argument has been strengthened by two events. First, yet another industrial dispute in north-west London has affected postal services; secondly, increases in postal charges have recently been announced.
The sad, sorry saga of industrial relations in the postal service has given many of my constituents a deep sense of frustration. Only this morning, I received various letters: I shall quote, briefly, from two of them. One of my constituents asked:
Is there any means of making accountable to the public those responsible for the sporadic, sometimes prolonged, always disruptive and damaging postal strikes which bedevil north-west London, of which we are a part?
A second wrote:
I have lost count of the number of times I have been denied this most essential service for my profession recently. What sort of Government is it that cannot control a postal service, and discipline or dismiss the left-wing agitators who terrorise this district?
Those are two examples of constituents' complaints about the constant interruption of postal services suffered by the people of north-west London over many years.
The second event—the Post Office's announcement of a series of increases in charges—underlines its weakness and inefficiency. I understand from the Post Office business plan, provided by the Mail Users Association—the Post Office was kind enough to give it to the association—that last year the inland letters service made a pre-interest loss of £37 million, and that the most profitable part of the postal service is interest-receivable. The international letters service made a profit of £41 million on sales of £331 million. In the letters business, 64 per cent. of pre-interest profit comes from 10 per cent. of turnover. Interest receivable in the year 1990–91 will be twice the profit from inland letters.
My remarks are not aimed at the chairman of the Post Office, its board or its employers; I believe that the Post Office's problems are an inevitable consequence of nationalising a monopoly. It is no coincidence that the part of the Post Office that is relatively efficient—the parcels operation—is the part that has to operate in a competitive world. I congratulate the chairman of the Post Office on securing the freedom of Giro to prosper in the private sector, and on "divisionalising" the Post Office into Royal Mail, Post Office Counters Ltd. and the parcels service. Those three divisions are a privatiser's dream.
The chairman has also performed a major public service by ensuring that the Post Office lives in the real world, instead of the world of make-believe statistics that dominated public comment on the subject for so long.
Post Office Counters operates in a large number of prime sites, but suffers from several basic problems. First, there is a declining market. The 1987–88 report of the Post Office said that growth was in danger of petering out; certainly, Post Office Counters, basic business is providing pensions and child benefit, and in future many people will want to be paid by Giro rather than in straight cash. Secondly, Post Office Counters lacks the property expertise to redevelop the sites, and the present financial arrangements make it rather unnecessary for it to do so: if


it were to redevelop, the money would go straight back to the Treasury, and would not be reinvested within the business.
When the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked into Post Office Counters, it was critical of what it saw. It said that working practices and clerical procedures were outdated, that there was less than a full workload for the hours paid and that overtime was institutionalised and often unnecessary. As a result, Post Office Counters operates in many of the prime sites in our high streets, but its open for far fewer hours than many retailers. Apart from Post Office Counters, no other high street retailer shuts on Saturday afternoons. If Post Office Counters were privatised en bloc tomorrow, the result would be greatly beneficial to a large number of its employees and to its customers.
There are many complaints about the cost and quality of postal services. Hon. Members know of the apocryphal evidence. During the Pete Murray programme last week, a listener telephoned to say that a card that he sent for Easter 1989 arrived just in time for Easter 1990. Another listener telephoned to say that a letter that was posted in March arrived elsewhere in London in mid-June. One of the prime cases was of a letter that went 15 miles during five days. At three miles a day, pigeon post would be somewhat more efficient.
When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry examined the Post Office, it referred to the present deplorable performance of the first-class mail service. The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) said that, over the years, the Post Office had not organised itself as effectively as it should.
When the Consumers Association investigated the Post Office in September last year, it pointed out that the first-class mail service had deteriorated since 1985. Only 85 per cent. of first-class mail was delivered the next day, and only 53 per cent. of long-distance first-class mail was delivered the day after it was posted. That is a much poorer record than the Post Office aims at, and it underlines the difficulties with which the consumer must contend.
It is not only first-class post that is a source of complaint for many consumers. The Which? survey found that a large amount of second-class mail was not arriving by the third working day after posting. The survey came to certain conclusions, one of which was to avoid posting first-class mail on Friday or Saturday because it has less chance of arriving on time. Of mail that is posted on Friday, only 50 per cent. would arrive on time.
Not only Which? has shown how bad the first-class postal service is. The mail users survey of March 1989 showed that first-class and second-class mail services were quite inadequate. It estimated that the cost of postal delays to industry was £4 billion.
Apart from postal services being unreliable and slow, a significant amount of post is now lost. The Mail Users Association has estimated that 5 per cent. of letters disappear. Regardless of whether we judge the postal service on the basis of price increases or reliability, it is inadequate.
Post Office representatives have periodically referred to the difficulty that the service faces. They have so far failed to produce the goods. The 1978 Carter report concluded:
If the service becomes much worse than the public expects, it would become impossible to defend the monopoly against those who might offer a better service.

The Post Office has failed to deliver the goods at the speed that it promised. A competitive service would produce a better deal for the consumer.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will make international comparisons. He will compare the British monopoly with the German monopoly. We do not want to say whether one monopoly is better than another—Conservative Members believe that all monopolies are inherently bad and inefficient—but we want to know whether a competitive service would not be better than a monopolistic service. The record of the Post Office in recent years demonstrates that a competitive environment would be better than the present environment. The conclusion can be only that the present position is unsatisfactory.
On Saturday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that her enthusiasm for privatisation and greater competition for the state industries continues apace. My hon. Friend the Minister's belief in competition and the evils of monopolies was frequently demonstrated in Strasbourg and on the Back Benches of the House before he became a Minister. I look forward to his reiterating the speeches that he made before the burdens of office came on to his shoulders, where they sit so lightly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on obtaining this debate this evening. I acknowledge the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) has been present during the debate, as have the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was here earlier. As ever, my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are keeping a close eye on what I say and, I suspect, on how long I take to say it.
This is an important subject, of interest to every citizen. It is one in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has shown a consistent and expert interest since he came to the House. As he is aware, the Post Office is not an ordinary nationalised industry. Whereas many of Britain's nationalised industries came into being only relatively recently, the Post Office's links with the Crown go back a long way. The Post Office has long been at the forefront of the development of global postal services. It is especially appropriate at this time to mention, as an example of that tradition of innovation, the introduction of the adhesive postage stamp and with it the universal delivery and single tarriff postal system, which were introduced in Britain by Rowland Hill 150 years ago and which are now taken for granted throughout the world.
We should also remind ourselves that the Post Office is a very successful organisation. As my hon. Friend anticipated. I shall mention briefly—it is important to do so—that the quality of the letters service in this country is significantly higher than in most other European Community countries, Indeed, the Post Office recently announced that, according to a survey that it commissioned of the quality of the letters service in six European countries, including the United Kingdom, our Post Office now offers the best quality of service of all


those countries. In addition, I remind the House that, unlike many European postal administrations, the Post Office has throughout the past decade generated profits.
We cannot expect an organisation as big as the Post Office to be without its difficulties and there are several areas in which we would all like improvements. I shall touch on some of those now, and in doing so I shall address the issues that my hon. Friend raised in his speech.
While the Government do not have day-to-day responsibility for the quality of service in the Post Office—that is, of course, an operational matter for the Post Office—I and my colleagues are aware of how important that is to users of the Post Office's services. I say that bearing in mind the point, which my hon. Friend stressed, that the Post Office enjoys a statutory monopoly on the carriage of ordinary letters—a subject to which I shall briefly return later. The Post Office chairman has made it clear on a number of occasions that he regards improvements to the quality of service as a key priority, and I welcome that. I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the chairman and his colleagues, and I join him in that. They discharge a difficult task with great vigour and dedication.
For some time, there has been a perception among mail users, including my hon. Friend, that the letters service is perhaps not as good as it should be. Indeed, judging from my hon. Friend's remarks tonight, he may well think that to be an understatement. I remind the House of the protracted national postal strike in September 1988. More recently, we have been faced, particularly the constituents of my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, with the difficulties caused by the unofficial—I stress that they are unofficial—strikes in the north-west and west London letters districts. The Government consider that industrial relations, while primarily a matter for the Post Office, its employees and the trade unions, are something about which we share my hon. Friend's concern.
I must repeat what I said to the House last week: every time unofficial industrial action is taken that prejudices the level of service offered by the Post Office, it strengthens the argument of those who would like to see radical change in the present status of the Post Office. I hope that Post Office employees will bear that in mind before taking such action.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the number of days lost through industrial action in the year to March 1990 was 20 per cent. lower than the corresponding figure for the previous year, even when the effects of the national stoppage in September 1988 are taken out. I look forward to seeing that improvement maintained in future.
Recruitment and retention have been a problem for Royal Mail recently, particularly in London and the south-east of England, and this too has inevitably had an effect on quality of service. I am glad to be able to say that Royal Mail is responding to this problem with imagination and vigour. Regional pay supplements in areas of difficult recruitment area now a well-established feature of Royal Mail's pay structure and their introduction has proved to be a significant benefit.
Royal Mail has also taken a series of direct steps designed further to improve the quality of its services. During 1990, we have seen the reintroduction of Sunday

collections, and by the autumn that part of the programme will be complete. Improvements are being made to Royal Mail's transport network, which will enable mail to be moved around the country more quickly. The airborne network, which moves first-class mail around the country, has recently been strengthened by the addition of four new routes, and more mail is now being moved locally by road.
In the sorting offices, state-of-the-art optical character recognition sorting machines which can read typewritten postcodes are being introduced. In addition, we have seen the introduction of the sale of postage stamps through about 40,000 retail outlets throughout the country, and I know what a popular measure it has proved to be.
Complementing those developments, the Post Office introduced for the first time last year an end-to-end quality of service measurement system which measures the quality of the letter service as the customer sees it. At the same time, the Post Office made a public commitment—agreed with the Post Office Users National Council—to improve the quality of the first-class letter service on average by 3 per cent. during the year to the end of March 1990. I understand that, while problem areas still remain—they were highlighted by my hon. Friend—this overall target was slightly exceeded. According to the Post Office's statistics, compiled for it by independent consultants, nationally, 78.1 per cent. of first-class letters were delivered the next day during the year to the end of March 1990 compared with 75.4 per cent. in the previous year.
I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Post Office on this improvement and in encouraging it to continue to work for further improvements. On this point, I welcome the announcement last week that the Post Office has agreed with the Post Office Users National Council a further set of district-by-district quality of service improvement targets for first-class mail for this year of an average of 3 per cent.
I am pleased to say that the improvements that I have outlined are not confined to Royal Mail. Hon. Members will have noticed the relaunch of the Post Office's parcels business under the name Parcelforce. Considerable investment is being made in Parcelforce to enable it to meet the needs of its customers. Hon. Members will be aware that Parcelforce has no monopoly protection—my hon. Friend mentioned this—and has to compete for its share of what has become a very competitive market.
Overall, these developments represent a considerable investment package. In this year's public expenditure White Paper it was announced that the Post Office was planning to spend more than £1 billion over the next three years, about 60 per cent. of which will be spent in Royal Mail. The total planned capital expenditure of around £350 million this year is more than twice as much as was spent in 1987–88.
It is my belief, and I hope that the House will agree, that the package of measures that I have described provides encouraging evidence of the determination of Royal Mail, and of the Post Office as a whole, to meet the needs of its customers by improving the quality of service it offers them. These improvements do not, however, come free of charge. In order to help to fund the major programme of investment that I mentioned a few moments ago—as my hon. Friend acknowledged, or rather criticised—the Post Office has recently consulted the Post Office Users National Council about a proposal to increase the first and second-class letter tariffs by 2p in September. Although none of us welcomes such price increases, we must


recognise that they are needed to fund improvements in quality of service and even after the increases, stamp prices will have risen by considerably less than inflation over the past five years.
I know that there are some, however, like my hon. Friend, who feel that the only way to have a Post Office which is efficient and genuinely responsive to consumers' needs is to subject it to full competition. That was the burden of my hon. Friend's argument. He wanted to abolish its statutory monopoly for the conveyance of letters or to subject it to market disciplines by other means, such as privatisation.
I should say immediately about the monopoly of letter services in general, that the Government attach great importance to the continuation of a letter service which enables letters to be sent from anywhere to anywhere in the United Kingdom at the same reasonable tariff rate. In particular, we fully recognise the significance of such a facility for those living in isolated communities or wishing to communicate with them.
Post Office services throughout the world have traditionally been afforded the protection of a mail monopoly to help them to achieve the twin objectives of universal delivery at a uniform, affordable price. The extent of the letter monopoly varies from country to country, but it may be worth repeating the classic economic arguments for having one.
Other things being equal, there must be scale economies in letter conveyance, particularly in final delivery. It generally costs no more to empty a letter box containing 50 letters than one containing 100. If a postman must walk down one's garden path or climb the stairs to one's flat to deliver one letter, it will generally cost little more for him to do so with three. Consequently, removing letter traffic from the Post Office might not allow it to reduce its costs proportionately, and the average cost of conveying the letters remaining with the Post Office would tend to increase. The result would be either higher stamp charges or a bill for the taxpayer. Neither alternative is attractive. The consequences for the Post Office's costs would be exacerbated by the fact that anyone entering the letter market without obligations would naturally take the lower-cost traffic first.
Arguments about the monopoly are not all one way. We know from experience that the letter monopoly is certainly no panacea. It denies the consumer choice and represses innovation in the development of new types of service. It also protects the Post Office from outside influence, shelters it from the financial consequences of perhaps less-than-perfect organisation and productivity, and prevents direct external comparisons from being made.
It is worth remembering that the Post Office is already subject to some competition. The letter monopoly in the United Kingdom does not extend to letters for which less than £1 is charged. That allows competition for time-critical and value-added mail. There is no monopoly in the delivery of parcels.
Nonetheless, there is no doubt that increased direct competition in the letter market would be beneficial and that some of the financial pressures resulting from any loss of scale economies, or "cream skimming" as it is known, of low-cost traffic could be balanced, or perhaps exceeded, through improved Post Office efficiency. The challenge is to determine the manner in which and the degree to which competition should be introduced so that its benefits can

be realised, while allowing the Post Office to continue to fulfil its obligations at a reasonable cost to its customers. Therefore, as the Government have made clear on many occasions, we keep and will continue to keep the options for introducing further competition under review to ensure that the needs of customers throughout the United Kingdom are met as fully as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned counters. The Post Office operates the largest retail network in the country. It has over 20,000 post offices throughout the United Kingdom—considerably more outlets than any bank or building society and more per head of population than in France, Germany, Japan or the United States of America. That means that, in the United Kingdom, post offices are easily accessible to all but those in the remotest areas. In urban areas, the aim is to have offices distributed so that no one is more than a mile from a post office, and in rural areas no more than two miles.
Only a small proportion of offices—some 1,300 out of over 20,000—are directly owned and operated by Post Office Counters. The vast majority of offices, about 19,300, are already sub-post offices, run under contract to Post Office Counters Ltd. by self-employed sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. That arrangement benefits both parties. The post office brings in regular customers to buy stamps, post parcels and collect benefits and pensions, providing potential customers for the sub-postmaster or mistress's private business. Overheads are shared between the two busineses. Sub and agency offices can therefore have significant advantages over directly run Crown offices.
In rural areas particularly, post offices also serve an important social function in their local communities. That was clearly recognised in the Act establishing the Post Office as a public corporation, which imposes on the Post Office a statutory duty to have regard to the social as well as industrial and commercial needs of the United Kingdom in exercising its powers. Because of that, changes in the network require careful consultation with the local community and the Post Office Users National Council as representatives of the customer.
In 1988, Post Office Counters began the process of restructuring its network, which I hope my hon. Friend welcomed, both to give a more cost-effective service and, like any retail network, to respond to movements in population and variations in shopping habits. As part of that process, it has converted about 170 Crown post offices, mostly smaller ones, to agencies. The Post Office is continuing that process. It has completed consultations on some 290 proposed conversions and begun consultations on a further 40. I shall be pressing it to move ahead with the process as quickly as possible.
Before concluding, I will mention one topic of increasing importance to the Post Office and to private sector mail operators—developments in the European Community in the context of the single market. Towards the end of the year, the European Commission plans to publish a Green Paper on Community postal policy, which will be considered by the Council of Ministers before a period of public consultation, which is likely to continue into 1991. Once the consultative process has been completed, it will be for the Council of Ministers to decide on any changes that the Community may introduce.
The Commission, with the help of a senior officials group, has been collecting information and views from member states for several months. It is too early to


speculate on its final proposals, but the United Kingdom takes the view that those who live in the Community should have access to a basic letter service at an affordable tariff—but beyond that, it believes that the Post Office should be subject to maximum competitive pressures. We believe that there is an important role for competition to play in increasing efficiency and improving services to the customer.
I have tried to do justice to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that he accepts the balance of the

arguments that we see—acknowledging the improvements that the Post Office has made to its services and looking forward to yet further improvements, while being sensitive to the needs of my hon. Friend's constituents and their natural desire to see an improvement in Post Office services. I hope also that my hon. Friend and the House recognise the continuing efforts being made by the Post Office's management and employees to do justice to the confidence shown in them by the House, the Government, and users of post office services throughout the land.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Two o'clock.